The Obssession with Homosexuality

[DemonArchangel]

Why do nominally straight people talk constantly about gay marriage and homosexuality? Why do they get so worked up about it?

I think I've spotted a bit of sexual insecurity amongst those heterosexuals that constantly, constantly talk about gay marriage.

[HoreTore]

Because I hate it when my fellow citizens are discriminated.

[Hax]

HoreTore sums it up.

No individual deserves to be discriminated against. I see no reason why gay people should not be allowed to marry.

[ajaxfetish]

Why do nominally straight people talk constantly about gay marriage and homosexuality? Why do they get so worked up about it?

I think I've spotted a bit of sexual insecurity amongst those heterosexuals that constantly, constantly talk about gay marriage.
Talking constantly in favor of it, or against it? If in favor, HoreTore answered you. If against, they're just jealous.

Ajax

[a completely inoffensive name]

Why do nominally straight people talk constantly about gay marriage and homosexuality? Why do they get so worked up about it?


I am sorry, but those gay marriages threaten my lifestyle. When my wife sees those happy gay married couples, she gets dissatisfied with our marraige and will then turn gay because gay is a choice, which will make me lose all those tax benefits, not that there are any tax benefits nowadays because of that socialist Obama. It's all true, just ask Hannity or any anchor on Fox News AKA the last bastion of fair and balanced reporting on this 6,000 year old God given planet of ours.



Sarcasm, for those who can't tell.

[Fragony]

Well I make a destinction between homosexual and fags. Gays will have to chose to being accepted as an individual, or as a homosexual. And they will have to chose to identifying theirselves as a individual, or a as a homosexual. Can't behave the way they do, tearing eachother inside-out in broad daylight, and then tell me 'hey I am just like you and I demand respect'.

[Vuk]

I'm obssessed with them 'cause I think they are hot. :yes:

[Incongruous]

Vuk! You tease! Get back into that homoerotic gas mask before I:whip:

[Vuk]

Hey now bad boy, not so hard. ~;)

:hippie:

[Furunculus]

Why do nominally straight people talk constantly about gay marriage and homosexuality? Why do they get so worked up about it?

I think I've spotted a bit of sexual insecurity amongst those heterosexuals that constantly, constantly talk about gay marriage.

i don't.

do whatever you want to do in the privacy of your own homes, but do not parade it publicly in my face.

that goes for pretty much any private persuasion, not just homo-sexiness, i simply am not interested in 'your' special interest circle-jerk.

[rory_20_uk]

I have to say I honestly don't care either. There are enough bad things in the world already without trying to find fault in things that are working.

~:smoking:

[Hooahguy]

i have no problem with gay marriage, other than the fact that you can marry under Jewish law (see Acharei-Mot), but i dont like it when they try to shove the fact that they are gay into our lives.
"ok, you are gay. so what?"

[Hax]

i have no problem with gay marriage, other than the fact that you can marry under Jewish law (see Acharei-Mot), but i dont like it when they try to shove the fact that they are gay into our lives.
"ok, you are gay. so what?"

To be honest, I also dislike "straight" couples shoving the fact that they are straight into our lives. You know, the type of people that go eating eachother in public. Annoys me. Doesn't matter whether it's gay or straight.

[Hooahguy]

To be honest, I also dislike "straight" couples shoving the fact that they are straight into our lives. You know, the type of people that go eating eachother in public. Annoys me. Doesn't matter whether it's gay or straight.
i agree. if you had to ask me, PDA should be looked down upon. not talking about holding hands or hugging, but more seious stuff.

[Vuk]

My gf and I routinely have sex on park benches. Some times we invite standers-by and turn it into a public event. :yes:
:hippie:

[HoreTore]

i agree. if you had to ask me, PDA should be looked down upon. not talking about holding hands or hugging, but more seious stuff.

What?

Seriously?

You people have a problem with couples kissing in public?

Seriously?

[Vuk]

What?

Seriously?

You people have a problem with couples kissing in public?

Seriously?

Yes, of course. Having sex on park benches is one thing, but no kissing!

[Fragony]

What?

Seriously?

You people have a problem with couples kissing in public?

Seriously?

A peck on the mouth no problem but a full frenchie, bad taste.

[HoreTore]

A peck on the mouth no problem but a full frenchie, bad taste.

Why....?

Why even care...?

Anything involving genitals I understand, but simple kissing...?

[Vuk]

A peck on the mouth no problem but a full frenchie, bad taste.

It depends, on the right person, the taste could be very good.


Why....?

Why even care...?

Anything involving genitals I understand, but simple kissing...?

A peck is a 'simple kiss', a 'frenchie' is a very complicated and sexually suggestive kiss. (and many times is performed in accompaniment with genital fondling)

[naut]

but a full frenchie, bad taste.
Hmm, you might need to give her(or him) a tictac, or maybe some gum.

[Fragony]

A peck is a 'simple kiss', a 'frenchie' is a very complicated and sexually suggestive kiss. (and many times is performed in accompaniment with genital fondling)

^-- Full frontal on a party or in a club, no problem. Time and a place for everything.

Hmm, you might need to give her(or him) a tictac, or maybe some gum.

I don't have a bad smell from my mouth if that's what you are suggesting.

[HoreTore]

A peck is a 'simple kiss', a 'frenchie' is a very complicated and sexually suggestive kiss. (and many times is performed in accompaniment with genital fondling)

Gawd, I know what a frenchie is(how old do you think I am?). Still can't see the problem though.

[Fragony]

Gawd, I know what a frenchie is(how old do you think I am?). Still can't see the problem though.

Just decency. Bar = fine, beach=no, park=ok, restaurant=no, terrace also no, see it's simple

[Rhyfelwyr]

It's the new battleground. It used to be something all society looked down upon, now they don't. Christians don't spend their time arguing about other wrongs simply because they would have nobody to argue with.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Whenever I see a homophobe, I call rent-a-gay and I make out with him in public.

It's 2009. Some five percent of people are gay. Get used to it, you provincials. :smash:



i dont like it when they try to shove the fact that they are gay into our lives.
Me, I've got no problem with Jews. 'But must they wear skullcaps and have subcultural eating habits? I mean, I just don't like it when they shove their Jewishness in my face...


Well I make a destinction between homosexual and fags. Gays will have to chose to being accepted as an individual, or as a homosexual. And they will have to chose to identifying theirselves as a individual, or a as a homosexual. Can't behave the way they do, tearing eachother inside-out in broad daylight, and then tell me 'hey I am just like you and I demand respect'. Well I make a distinction between Dutchmen and Bataves. Dutchmen will have to chose to being accepted as an individual, or as a Batave. Can't behave the way they do, tearing each other out in broad daylight, smoking drugs, public prostituting themselves, selling coke and heroine, and then tell me 'hey I am just like you and I demand respect'.

[Andres]

Demanding equal treatment for a certain group when unequal treatment is in no way justified is what is to be expected from each citizen in a modern civilised country.



Well I make a distinction between Dutchmen Walloons and Bataves Belgians. Walloons Dutchmen will have to chose to being accepted as an individual, or as a Batave Belgian. Can't behave the way they do, tearing each other out in broad daylight, smoking drugs, public prostituting themselves, selling coke and heroinestubbornly refusing to learn Dutch, thinking that French is a superior language, and then tell me 'hey I am just a Belgian like you and I demand respect'.

Fixed ~;)

[KukriKhan]

I see & hear it discussed frequently on the 'net and on TV and radio. Less so in print media, and almost never in real-life conversations. My friends and neighbors, gay and straight, talk sports, work, money, etc.

So I conclude: electronic media is way more obssessed with homosexuality than actual people are.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Well I make a distinction between Walloons and Belgians. Walloons will have to chose to being accepted as an individual, or as a Belgian. Can't behave the way they do, stubbornly refusing to learn Dutch, thinking that French is a superior language, and then tell me 'hey I am just a Belgian like you and I demand respect'.Why should francophones in Belgium learn a language they'll never need, a language of distant lands they never visit? ~:confused:


More in general, the world misunderstands the francophones. Spoken French only uses a frequency of between 1000 and 2000 Hertz. Germanic languages use a range from 150 to 3000 Hertz. This is why French sounds so pleasant, so soothening. Elegant even. And this is why non-French, especially Germanic, sounds like animal-like low grunts or high-pitched squeels to francophones.

It also explains why it is nigh impossible for francophones to learn another language past a very early age. We simply do not hear what you say. We would understand it, we simply, literally, can't hear you. We hear you no more than you hear sub-sonic whale sounds, or high pitched mice. Our ears do not register the sounds you are producing.


Yes, it is true. Not kidding around.

[HoreTore]

Every time I read one of Louis' posts, I curse my mother for giving birth to me here, instead of in France.

[Andres]

Why should francophones in Belgium learn a language they'll never need, a language of distant lands they never visit? ~:confused:


Well, because they live in Belgium and a non important part (the majority?) of the country speaks Dutch? How else will we communicate, let alone govern the country together? What about mutual respect?

"Nous sommes tous des belges, où est le problème? On s'entend bien, n'est-ce pas?" Ja, zolang we Frans praten begrijpen we mekaar...

Or is the refusal to learn Dutch a sign that our Walloon friends would prefer to split the country?

But let's not derail the thread with off topic-ness. Feel free to open a thread about Belgium and the upcoming elections if you want :bow:

Note to self: switch on humor detector before replying to Louis.


And I know enough Walloons who speak Dutch fluently and didn't learn it as a child, so "our ears don't register what you say" is pure nonsense. I don't care what scientific articles you throw at me. My ears > any text written by whatever obscure scientists.

[Vuk]

Let's just stop playing games and say what everyone on this thread has been hinting at: the Dutch just suck. No matter which way you play it, you cannot change the fact that they wear wooden shoes, and everyone knows that only the worst barbarians and creatures from the planet Zog wear wooden shoes. ~;)
I say we deport them all to the planet pluto!

[Samurai Waki]

I'm rather fond of the Dutch, when they're not shoving their Dutchiness into my face :wink:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I tend to take a middle ground on the issue of gay marriage, but to be completely honest, I don't care much one way or the other. I am as open to one side of the argument as I am to the other.

[Ice]

Why do nominally straight people talk constantly about gay marriage and homosexuality? Why do they get so worked up about it?

I think I've spotted a bit of sexual insecurity amongst those heterosexuals that constantly, constantly talk about gay marriage.

Insecurity and Fear

[Strike For The South]

Whenever I see a homophobe, I call rent-a-gay and I make out with him in public.



:cry: You said you loved me, you no good harlet.

As to the issue at hand, what gets put inside you or what you put inside someone else is no buisness of mine. Unless it's on video in which case I want to see it in HD.

[Kadagar_AV]

I also wonder...

I do get a bit grossed out when two gays make out in public, but not more than seeing two ugly heterosexuals doing it...

In the army my spotter was gay. Suffice to say we shared some really close moments, like, spooning to keep the warmth...

Did it bother me? Not in the least. He never came on to me (having helped someone through a diareha (spelling?) out in the bush probably kills romance... hehe...

What's my point?

I have none really... I don't mind where people put their dicks, as long as it isnt in my girlfriend :)

[Furunculus]

i'm just not interested in seeing parades in 'honour' of it, keep it in the bedroom.

[Kadagar_AV]

I can think of few better reasons than LOVE to hold a parade... no?

[Furunculus]

if someone can perusade their local town council to hold a parade then fine, but don't use public funds*, and don't expect me to be there.



* with the exception of local regiments returning from active service.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I'm rather fond of the Dutch, when they're not shoving their Dutchiness into my face :wink:

I like it when they shove their dutchiness in my face, personally. :antlers: And yes, while I am wearing the antlers. Don't ask why.

[KarlXII]

I think I've spotted a bit of sexual insecurity amongst those heterosexuals that constantly, constantly talk about gay marriage.

All Republicans that oppose Obama are, in fact, insecure Democrats. :juggle2:

No, people have opinions, and beliefs, that they stand by. I have no problem with someone opposing gay marriage, it is when they try to ban a private affair that gets my goat.

[Fragony]

i'm just not interested in seeing parades in 'honour' of it, keep it in the bedroom.

Ya, can't stand attention-whores. If you don't like being gay being a point, stop making a point about being gay.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Note to self: switch on humor detector before replying to Louis.Hmm, you seem to have been genuinly irritated by my posts here. (Did the annual Belgium tax papers fell on your doormat? :yougotmail: )

Anyway:
I wasn't slagging off the Dutch (or the Jews), I was simply imitating Hooahguy's and Fragoguy's statements, replacing 'gays' with Jews and Dutch repsectively to make a point.
The Walloon statement was ironic. 'Distant lands they never visit' - this was aimed against the debilitating insularic tendency of Walloons to consider as foreign, regions that are a mere twenty-minute bicycle ride away, places with jobs. Yes, I am not completely blinded by solidarity.

[InsaneApache]

It also explains why it is nigh impossible for francophones to learn another language past a very early age. We simply do not hear what you say. We would understand it, we simply, literally, can't hear you. We hear you no more than you hear sub-sonic whale sounds, or high pitched mice. Our ears do not register the sounds you are producing.

This is so true. When I was in France, no matter how loud I shouted at them and no matter how vigorously I waved and flapped my arms about, they just couldn't understand my English.

I wouldn't mind but I got an 'O' level in French. Mind you it was 35 years ago. :sweatdrop:

[Andres]

Hmm, you seem to have been genuinly irritated by my posts here. (Did the annual Belgium tax papers fell on your doormat? :yougotmail: )

Anyway:
I wasn't slagging off the Dutch (or the Jews), I was simply imitating Hooahguy's and Fragoguy's statements, replacing 'gays' with Jews and Dutch repsectively to make a point.
The Walloon statement was ironic. 'Distant lands they never visit' - this was aimed against the debilitating insularic tendency of Walloons to consider as foreign, regions that are a mere twenty-minute bicycle ride away, places with jobs. Yes, I am not completely blinded by solidarity.

I know, I know :shame:

That's why I did the thingy with my original post, instead of just deleting it; to emphasise how stupid my response was, instead of hiding my stupidity, which would have been unfair.

I was an idiot by making such a post because you were obviously being ironic and I was too busy being the flemish narrow minded idiot I sometimes am to spot it.

I apologise for completely misunderstanding your post and annoying you by making a fool of myself.

:bow:

EDIT: and I don't fear the Belgian taxpapers, usually it are they who owe me money. I'm still waiting for their payment.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I waved and flapped my arms aboutSee? We just can't hear the frequency you are using.

Then again, our ears are finely tuned to sound of paper softly rushing in the wind. Next time when flapping your arms around to grab a French waiter's attention, put a tenner in your hand, alright? He'll be sure to hear that.

[Vuk]

I went to get a massage, but all the females were busy and there was only a very gay looking guy there. Call me a homophobe, but I did not let that oh-so-feminine man rub his lotion covered hands all over me. :P I just spent some time in the thermal baths instead. :P

[Askthepizzaguy]

I went to get a massage, but all the females were busy and there was only a very gay looking guy there. Call me a homophobe, but I did not let that oh-so-feminine man rub his lotion covered hands all over me. :P I just spent some time in the thermal baths instead. :P

I don't care whose hands they are, as long as they rub my shoulders, back, and buttocks in just the right firm-yet-gentle way.

As long as my Skinny Marinky Dinky Dink ends up with my girlfriend's Skinna Marinky Doo, and no one else's, that means I like women.


:bow:

[Vuk]

I don't care whose hands they are, as long as they rub my shoulders, back, and buttocks in just the right firm-yet-gentle way.

As long as my Skinny Marinky Dinky Dink ends up with my girlfriend's Skinna Marinky Doo, and no one else's, that means I like women.


:bow:

lol, it was not his gender that turned me off, it was his overly excited attitude and winking. :P I am an overweight, gross guy, and anyone who is that interested in fondeling my naked body has serious problems. :P Trust me, I would have been turned off if a woman showed interest like that too, just not as much. It is more so with the guy, because I do not find guys attractive at all. :P (except Clay Aiken :beam:)


EDIT: Skinny huh? :P Don't worry, I will keep your secret. :P

[Askthepizzaguy]

EDIT: Skinny huh? :P Don't worry, I will keep your secret. :P

It's just a child-friendly expression.

Well yeah I suppose if he's an over-the-top fruity fruitcake, then yeah I don't want his creepy fingers touching me. I was referring to normal people, gay or straight. As long as he doesn't try to grab himself a couple of handfuls of my cheesy goodness, I'm happy.

[rasoforos]

A very wise greek proverb roughly translates:

'A cucumber that doesn't grow up your bum you shouldn't care how it grows'

It means that if something does not really affect you then you should not try to stop it

Perhaps, just perhaps, some 'straight' people are so 'interested' in homosexuality because they try to hide their own homosexual feelings (and there is a plethora of anti-gay enthusiasts caught taking it up the bum to prove it)

[Askthepizzaguy]

DUDE! I'm eating cucumbers right now wtf have some respect for people who want to eat cukes!










:clown: obviously.

[rasoforos]

DUDE! I'm eating cucumbers right now wtf have some respect for people who want to eat cukes!










:clown: obviously.

You don't really want to know the other greek proverb involving cucumbers then... :yes:

[Vuk]

A very wise greek proverb roughly translates:

'A cucumber that doesn't grow up your bum you shouldn't care how it grows'

It means that if something does not really affect you then you should not try to stop it

Perhaps, just perhaps, some 'straight' people are so 'interested' in homosexuality because they try to hide their own homosexual feelings (and there is a plethora of anti-gay enthusiasts caught taking it up the bum to prove it)

Sorry Ras, but that does not make much sense to me. The thing is that they think it IS affecting them, even though they are not the ones with the cucumber up their butts. :P
Also, the argument that people who oppose the spread of homosexuality are secretly gay is as ridiculous as saying that people who oppose the spread of murder are secret murderers. Don't get me wrong, I am not equating the two, but a lot of people think they are both a sin, and so oppose the spread of homosexuality. (if there was not so much of it and if it were not being flaunted so, there would not be so much contraversy over it)

[Fragony]

Perhaps, just perhaps, some 'straight' people are so 'interested' in homosexuality because they try to hide their own homosexual feelings (and there is a plethora of anti-gay enthusiasts caught taking it up the bum to prove it)

yaya.

It are actually the gays themselves who are obsessed with their sexual preference. I wouldn't care if they didn't care so much but too much is too much. Example, we have the gay parade here, boats full of gays in Amsterdam. They wanted a boat for homosexual people with down syndrome, they wanted a boat for homosexual 11 year olds (wtf?). Just act normal.

[Vuk]

yaya.

It are actually the gays themselves who are obsessed with their sexual preference. I wouldn't care if they didn't care so much but too much is too much. Example, we have the gay parade here, boats full of gays in Amsterdam. They wanted a boat for homosexual people with down syndrome, they wanted a boat for homosexual 11 year olds (wtf?). Just act normal.

Exactly, just get on with it. I recently just found out that a friend of mine here in Hungary was gay. I had no idea until it came up in conversation. I don't care, it is his choice. It affected me about as much as if he told me that he was straight. Anyone, gay or straight who goes around like an obnoxious twit, flaunting their sexual preference I find disgusting though. I have never seen a straight person do it, but infortunately, I have seen gays do it all too often. I think that is why most people make a big deal about them, because they make a big deal about themselves. It is asking why everyone in the room is fixated with the stripper; because the stripper wants attention and is demanding it, so of course she he (it fits better with the mood :P) is going to get it.

[Tribesman]

they wanted a boat for homosexual 11 year olds (wtf?). Just act normal.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Same old crap again Frag , can you force yourself to write what the real story was instead of once again repeating your oft debunked fabrication ?

[rory_20_uk]

I think it's a continuing reaction against homophobia. When they realise in most places they're demonstrating a non existent majority they'll calm down.

Although expecting them to loose interest in parades with fabulous dresses and make up is probably asking too much...

~:smoking:

[Vuk]

I think it's a continuing reaction against homophobia. When they realise in most places they're demonstrating a non existent majority they'll calm down.

Although expecting them to loose interest in parades with fabulous dresses and make up is probably asking too much...

~:smoking:

Well they are being just as bad as homophobes. Sure, they have their right to sexual preferences, but what about the rights of the people who do not want sexual parades going by their houses? They cannot intrude on other people's rights so that they can flaunt their own. It is not just them though, I remember when I was in Chicago there was some kind of :daisy: up fetish parade going right by where I slept. I was absolutely :daisy:, because I saw and heard a lot of things I could have gone my entire life without seeing and hearing, could not go outside, and was kept up all night. Crap like that that infringes on other people's rights should be illegal. Man, I forgot how much I :daisy: hate Chicago. :P That darned city is the armpit of the States. :P I have lived in big cities I have liked, so they cannot blame it on being a big city. It ain't the people either, because there are plenty of other cities with a lot of Poles, blacks, Serbs, Germans, etc. It is just the politics and way of life in Chicago. (and no, I had this opinion loooong before I heard of Obama :P) No offense to Chicagoians, but I have never had worse experiences than I did in Chicago, and have never been in a city I found more offensive. :P (even London is a nicer place ~;))

EDIT: Maybe if I moved to Amsterdam ~;)

[Fragony]

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Same old crap again Frag , can you force yourself to write what the real story was instead of once again repeating your oft debunked fabrication ?

[insert debunk here]

[aimlesswanderer]

I find hilarious when loud anti gay crusaders are eventually caught doing what they constantly denounced, hypocrisy FTW! Hello Ted Haggard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Haggard. Hello former senator Larry Craig http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Craig

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Perhaps, just perhaps, some 'straight' people are so 'interested' in homosexuality because they try to hide their own homosexual feelings (and there is a plethora of anti-gay enthusiasts caught taking it up the bum to prove it)

Some, maybe. On the other hand, I think KarlXII said it perfectly with:


All Republicans that oppose Obama are, in fact, insecure Democrats.

Saying that everyone who opposes gay marriage is a closet homosexual is a rather amusing troll.

[Kadagar_AV]

I have yet to see a valid argument as to why homosexuality would be "wrong".

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I have yet to see a valid argument as to why homosexuality would be "wrong".

I've already said that I don't care much either way. However, it really depends what you see as valid.

[Kadagar_AV]

I've already said that I don't care much either way. However, it really depends what you see as valid.


Valid - an argument that has any sort of sence behind it...

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Valid - an argument that has any sort of sence behind it...

Which is, of course, purely subjective.

[Askthepizzaguy]

If one argues that it is against God's will;
One can counter that they are the way God made them. If God wanted them some other way, he would have made them that way. Any argument regarding God's will is pure speculation anyway, because no one knows the mind of God. Any who claim to are fools.

If one argues that it is against nature;
There have been countless species who have demonstrated homosexual desire and coupling. Some species even change gender spontaneously in a same-sex environment, to keep the species alive. There is nothing particularly unique about human behavior, it is once again, perfectly natural, as we are part of nature, not separate from it.

If one argues that it is uncivilized;
It is a consenting activity between two adults, which is far less uncivilized than most other human behaviors such as hatred, loathing, greed, sloth, gluttony, selfishness, apathy, and so forth which are destructive things, none of them illegal. So if we are to legislate morality, why not touch on the things which clearly are tearing society apart, such as organized hatred? If you won't make hate illegal, why must you make love that you don't understand illegal? If Nazis can march freely in our streets, so can the gays. And duh, I'd prefer gays marching than Nazis.

If one argues that it is perverse;
Then you must make illegal all forms of sodomy including relations which involve parts of the body above the neck, because many people argue those activities are equally perverse, even among heterosexuals. You must also ban adult videos and literature, as well as adult oriented playthings. And you must also ban articles of clothing, public and private, which tittilate the senses and encourage lust which is not for the defined purpose of procreation. Once you outlaw what things people deem perverse, you must outlaw all forms of sex for pleasure, as that is not what God/nature/religious people intended it to be for.

If one argues it will lead to polygamy;
I have news for you. Polygamy already exists and it is indeed a separate issue. If you're this concerned about marriage, why not confront Islamic fundies who allow girls as young as 8 to be married to 50-year olds and be given no legal rights or protections. There are far worse things in the world than two consenting adults getting married, which involve much greater "distortions" of what we call marriage.

If one argues that it is immoral;
It is immoral to persecute a people who have done you no wrong. It is immoral to fire people from a job because of which consenting adult they choose to share a bed with. It is immoral to focus so much on preventing gay people from obtaining equality under the law. It is immoral to prevent people of the same gender to obtain the right to visit their loved ones in a hospital, or to adopt children. Gay and bisexual people often end up having children, and as such they are allowed (as if they needed our approval?) to raise their own children as fit, loving parents. A person's same-sex preference should not exclude them from acting as a normal member of society.

If one argues that it teaches children that it is ok, and that is contradictory to your religious teachings;
Other forms of behavior banned by your religious teachings, such as gambling or prostitution or divorce, happen all the time, and yet somehow you manage to live. Wars and slavery and human destruction of themselves and their environments happen all the time, and frankly the religious sector of our population tends to support or ignore those policies more than the secularists do. You can, as you are legally allowed to do, spread teachings of fear and hatred against gay people to your children. You can teach that they are rotten to the core and will burn in hell. And someday, your child may see your false piety and your casting off of other human beings as garbage, and they may elect to do the same towards you; especially considering that the chance that your child may be gay is greater than you might imagine. You must also realize that they can choose to believe in whatever faith they like in this country, or none at all, and increasingly that's what they will do. Yet somehow, ever since marriage between gays became legal in several states, God did not smote us, and nothing out of the ordinary happened. Oh, except for some very extraordinary things... such as a people once persecuted are now being treated like equal human beings, and it didn't affect your life in a negative way at all. For some people you've already judged as being fodder for Satan, they are enjoying their lives as free people. And if there is a God and he does judge them, let Him judge them for doing something they were free to engage in, not bullied into hiding from by religious zealots, forced to live an uncomfortable lie which often leads to depression and suicide.

Finally:
Love thy neighbor, and don't judge him or her, because you're hardly a saint, and their sexuality is none of your business. Because this will affect our laws and therefore our courts, you have a right to have an opinion on the matter, but once the votes have been counted and the laws upheld by a court, let it go. Find another scapegoat for blaming the world's troubles on.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Also, the argument that people who oppose the spread of homosexuality are secretly gay is as ridiculous as saying that people who oppose the spread of murder are secret murderers. Don't get me wrong, I am not equating the two, but a lot of people think they are both a sin, and so oppose the spread of homosexuality. (if there was not so much of it and if it were not being flaunted so, there would not be so much contraversy over it)

There are a number of people who think Jews are evil. By your logic, if there were just fewer people practicing Judaism and it wasn't done so publicly, there would not be so much controversy over it. If you have a problem with homosexuality that's fine, but it's never been demonstrated how it harms people, especially straight people.

[Vuk]

There are a number of people who think Jews are evil. By your logic, if there were just fewer people practicing Judaism and it wasn't done so publicly, there would not be so much controversy over it. If you have a problem with homosexuality that's fine, but it's never been demonstrated how it harms people, especially straight people.

You missed my point entirely ATPG. Jews do not flaunt their Judaism like gays flaunt their gayness. My point isn't whether it is right or wrong, but simply that people who think it is evil make a big deal about it because gay make such a big deal about themselves. I was not arguing for or against liking or disliking gays, simply saying that everyong who opposes them being secretly gay is hardly a satisfactory argument. I think the way gays flaunt themselves is a much more likely reason for there being so much anti-gay ferver.

[Fragony]

If one argues that it is against God's will;
One can counter that they are the way God made them. If God wanted them some other way, he would have made them that way. Any argument regarding God's will is pure speculation anyway, because no one knows the mind of God. Any who claim to are fools.

If one argues that it is against nature;
There have been countless species who have demonstrated homosexual desire and coupling. Some species even change gender spontaneously in a same-sex environment, to keep the species alive. There is nothing particularly unique about human behavior, it is once again, perfectly natural, as we are part of nature, not separate from it.

If one argues that it is uncivilized;
It is a consenting activity between two adults, which is far less uncivilized than most other human behaviors such as hatred, loathing, greed, sloth, gluttony, selfishness, apathy, and so forth which are destructive things, none of them illegal. So if we are to legislate morality, why not touch on the things which clearly are tearing society apart, such as organized hatred? If you won't make hate illegal, why must you make love that you don't understand illegal? If Nazis can march freely in our streets, so can the gays. And duh, I'd prefer gays marching than Nazis.

If one argues that it is perverse;
Then you must make illegal all forms of sodomy including relations which involve parts of the body above the neck, because many people argue those activities are equally perverse, even among heterosexuals. You must also ban adult videos and literature, as well as adult oriented playthings. And you must also ban articles of clothing, public and private, which tittilate the senses and encourage lust which is not for the defined purpose of procreation. Once you outlaw what things people deem perverse, you must outlaw all forms of sex for pleasure, as that is not what God/nature/religious people intended it to be for.

If one argues it will lead to polygamy;
I have news for you. Polygamy already exists and it is indeed a separate issue. If you're this concerned about marriage, why not confront Islamic fundies who allow girls as young as 8 to be married to 50-year olds and be given no legal rights or protections. There are far worse things in the world than two consenting adults getting married, which involve much greater "distortions" of what we call marriage.

If one argues that it is immoral;
It is immoral to persecute a people who have done you no wrong. It is immoral to fire people from a job because of which consenting adult they choose to share a bed with. It is immoral to focus so much on preventing gay people from obtaining equality under the law. It is immoral to prevent people of the same gender to obtain the right to visit their loved ones in a hospital, or to adopt children. Gay and bisexual people often end up having children, and as such they are allowed (as if they needed our approval?) to raise their own children as fit, loving parents. A person's same-sex preference should not exclude them from acting as a normal member of society.

If one argues that it teaches children that it is ok, and that is contradictory to your religious teachings;
Other forms of behavior banned by your religious teachings, such as gambling or prostitution or divorce, happen all the time, and yet somehow you manage to live. Wars and slavery and human destruction of themselves and their environments happen all the time, and frankly the religious sector of our population tends to support or ignore those policies more than the secularists do. You can, as you are legally allowed to do, spread teachings of fear and hatred against gay people to your children. You can teach that they are rotten to the core and will burn in hell. And someday, your child may see your false piety and your casting off of other human beings as garbage, and they may elect to do the same towards you; especially considering that the chance that your child may be gay is greater than you might imagine. You must also realize that they can choose to believe in whatever faith they like in this country, or none at all, and increasingly that's what they will do. Yet somehow, ever since marriage between gays became legal in several states, God did not smote us, and nothing out of the ordinary happened. Oh, except for some very extraordinary things... such as a people once persecuted are now being treated like equal human beings, and it didn't affect your life in a negative way at all. For some people you've already judged as being fodder for Satan, they are enjoying their lives as free people. And if there is a God and he does judge them, let Him judge them for doing something they were free to engage in, not bullied into hiding from by religious zealots, forced to live an uncomfortable lie which often leads to depression and suicide.

Finally:
Love thy neighbor, and don't judge him or her, because you're hardly a saint, and their sexuality is none of your business. Because this will affect our laws and therefore our courts, you have a right to have an opinion on the matter, but once the votes have been counted and the laws upheld by a court, let it go. Find another scapegoat for blaming the world's troubles on.

None of that, act normal, don't impose, tada. But that seems to be rather hard for attention-whores and provocation-junkies. Tearing eachother apart in broad daylight where everybody can (must?) see it, that doesn't help at all. I am not going to respect someone who doesn't respect me. Ask me to respect them as a person, fine. Demanding respect for their sexual preference, get lost.

[Askthepizzaguy]

You missed my point entirely ATPG. Jews do not flaunt their Judaism like gays flaunt their gayness. My point isn't whether it is right or wrong, but simply that people who think it is evil make a big deal about it because gay make such a big deal about themselves. I was not arguing for or against liking or disliking gays, simply saying that everyong who opposes them being secretly gay is hardly a satisfactory argument. I think the way gays flaunt themselves is a much more likely reason for there being so much anti-gay ferver.

I believe some Jews do flaunt their judaism, by wearing the skull caps and going to temple and wearing their hair a certain way and speaking the Yiddish and saying things like Mozel Tov. Some of them even wave the flag of Israel in their signature lines, or in support of Israel in front of their place of business. And by the way, most gays do not flaunt their gayness, because certain people AHEM make them feel unwelcome.

You know, those darn black people also make such a big deal about the equal rights, tolerance and acceptance of blacks, that if they would all just shut up and go away the world would be a better place, now wouldn't it? :no:

So the reason you don't think gays deserve equal protections is because they insist on living their lives in an openly gay manner?


None of that, act normal, don't impose, tada. But that seems to be rather hard for attention-whores and provocation-junkies. Tearing eachother apart in broad daylight where everybody can (must?) see it, that doesn't help at all. I am not going to respect someone who doesn't respect me. Ask me to respect them as a person, fine. Demanding respect for their sexual preference, get lost.

Straight people flaunt their sexuality much more than gay people do, because there is no majority of people who disapprove of it and condemn them for being Godless straights. The respect argument here is ludicrous, when you have rappers making music (?) videos involving barely clothed women, with drug-related, gang-related, money-obsessed, violent, sexist content, that is much more offensive to me than a man who speaks with a lisp and wears a pink shirt that says "We're here and we're queer." Straight people, historically, have zero respect for gays. So now, you're arguing since they don't automatically respect your wishes and just hide in the closet all the time, it is their own fault that the world hates them? Pardon but they've been in the closet for untold generations. They just want equal rights.

You can hate them and disrespect them all you want, so be it. It's a free country and if you want to judge them as being inferior or unworthy of your respect, feel free to do so, and I can do the same for you, and have a lot more reason to do so. But if you advocate against their equal rights, and you don't have an argument as to why, then why are you having the discussion? If the bottom line is that queers make you uncomfortable, (or if blacks make you uncomfortable, or if Jews make you uncomfortable, or if Democrats or Republicans make you uncomfortable, or if Midgets make you uncomfortable...) you know, suck it up or move to a homogenous and intolerant culture like, say, North Korea. You'll fit right in.

[Fragony]

They just want equal rights.

They got equal rights.

You can hate them and disrespect them all you want, so be it. It's a free country and if you want to judge them as being inferior or unworthy of your respect, feel free to do so, and I can do the same for you, and have a lot more reason to do so.

The ATPG monologues.

I respect them as a person, not as a homosexual, why should I? It ain't an achievement or anything all it takes is bending over. I don't respect people because they are christians, I don't respect people because they are muslims, and I don't respect people because the are gay.

But if you advocate against their equal rights

It's all in your head

If the bottom line is that queers make you uncomfortable

If you think I am harsh you should talk to a gay, yes, friend of mine who hates girlyfag's guts with a passion. Normal guy, has a relation, nobody thinks about it they just are. By the way, I slept with him. No not like that but in the same bed, that is how uncomfortable I am.

[Vuk]

I believe some Jews do flaunt their judaism, by wearing the skull caps and going to temple and wearing their hair a certain way and speaking the Yiddish and saying things like Mozel Tov. Some of them even wave the flag of Israel in their signature lines, or in support of Israel in front of their place of business. And by the way, most gays do not flaunt their gayness, because certain people AHEM make them feel unwelcome.

You know, those darn black people also make such a big deal about the equal rights, tolerance and acceptance of blacks, that if they would all just shut up and go away the world would be a better place, now wouldn't it? :no:

So the reason you don't think gays deserve equal protections is because they insist on living their lives in an openly gay manner?


Ok, who said I thought that they did not deserve equal protections? Boy ATPG, talk about putting words in peoples' mouths.
Your entire argument is bunk! Jews do not wear 'skull caps' (so tempted...), wear their hair a certain way, and speak Yiddish to draw attention to themselves. They do it because it is a religious calling. You know I am talking about the gays who relish in the attention they get for being gay. People who go to gay parades dressed as God knows what, people who screw each other in the street at said parades, people who everywhere they go (not for a religious convinction, but just to draw attention to themselves for being gay) wear rainbow T-shirts and eat the face off their boyfriend in Hardeez (talk about a way to ruin my darned male. I am sinking my teeth into a thick burger and all of a sudden two homos in rainbow shirts in front of my start eyeing me and then eating each other's faces off - disgusting). And yeah, I have seen all to many gays like that. (never seen anyone screaming for attention for being straight, you'll have to point the next one out to me) My argument was that that was why a lot of people were focusing on them, because they are demanding people's attention. Sure, there are straigh attention-:daisy:, but they are not looking for attention for being straight. When repubs (gay or straight) hold parades and wear t-shirts and demand attention for being repubs, people pay attention to them for being repubs, 'cause that is what they are flaunting. When women (gay or straight) flaunt their sexuality, you hear people focusing on how imoral people are, because that is what was being flaunted. Likewise, when you have a lot of people flaunting their gayness, it is going to rally people who believe being gay is wrong. If gays would stop making a big deal about them being gay, then it wouldn't be a big deal that they were gay.
I personally think homosexuality is wrong (and I am not gonna get into an argument as to why), but I got gay friends. It is their choice and I am not gonna judge them on it (heaven knows I make plenty of mistakes myself. I know most of them think me being a conservative is wrong :P). I really do not care at all that they are gay. When I see a bunch of sparkling guys dressed as peacocks in parade with their :daisy: hanging out, I find THAT offensive. You know what though? If people started having straight parades and flaunting being straight, and dressing like asses, and having sex in the streets, I would be disgusted by that too. If you do not want attention, DON'T DEMAND IT!


EDIT: and so you do not have another ATPG flight of fantasy, let me stress that I am not talking about people looking for attention, I am talking about people demanding attention for being gay. I am not saying that gays cannot kiss in public. I am talking about doing things just to show people that they are not gay. "I am gay" t-shirst for instance. WTF? Who cares? When you wear that t-shirt, you want people to care. I don't go wearing "I am straight" t-shirts, because it really shouldn't matter to anyone (but my gf :beam:). The only reason I would wear such a t-shirt is to make people focus on me being gay. Before you use you Judiasm argument, that is not the same, because they do not wear their cloths to flaunt themselves off as Jews. They do it out of religious conviction. I WANT people to know that I am a nice person. I WANT people to know that I am an honest person. I WANT people to be fooled into thinking that I am an intelligent person. I don't want people focusing on my sexual preferences though, because that is not what defines me. You can handsome and ugly people gay and straight. Smart and dumb. Nasty and nice, etc. Do you really want people to think of you as a sexual preference (ie a 'gay man') and not a person? Gay activist claim to want the very opposite, yet they define themselves as being gay and always call attention to it. If they want it to be no more important than 'do you like sugar with your coffee?', then why don't they act like it? If it is that important to them, then it will be that important to others.

[Tribesman]

Saw this gem on another forum

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural.

2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the world needs more children.

3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.

4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears's 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn't changed at all: women are property, Blacks can't marry Whites, and divorce is illegal.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That's why we only have one religion in America.

8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall.

9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage license.

10. Children can never succeed without both male and female role models at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer lifespans.

12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Yeah those arguments never work, I'm opposed to homosexuality because of my religion and I know its against God's will, secularism is just used today for its convenience but now people don't like it when it comes back to bite them, bring back the Godly Republic I say. :yes:

[Askthepizzaguy]

If gays would stop making a big deal about them being gay, then it wouldn't be a big deal that they were gay.

Ya know, I bet if we just made sure they had civil rights, you'd see them acting out a lot less. Pass gay marriage and you'll get a lot less marching in the streets.


I personally think homosexuality is wrong (and I am not gonna get into an argument as to why), but I got gay friends. It is their choice and I am not gonna judge them on it (heaven knows I make plenty of mistakes myself. I know most of them think me being a conservative is wrong :P). I really do not care at all that they are gay. When I see a bunch of sparkling guys dressed as peacocks in parade with their :daisy: hanging out, I find THAT offensive. You know what though? If people started having straight parades and flaunting being straight, and dressing like asses, and having sex in the streets, I would be disgusted by that too. If you do not want attention, DON'T DEMAND IT!

Political change often requires that you demand people's attention.


EDIT: and so you do not have another ATPG flight of fantasy, let me stress that I am not talking about people looking for attention, I am talking about people demanding attention for being gay. I am not saying that gays cannot kiss in public. I am talking about doing things just to show people that they are not gay. "I am gay" t-shirst for instance. WTF? Who cares? When you wear that t-shirt, you want people to care. I don't go wearing "I am straight" t-shirts, because it really shouldn't matter to anyone (but my gf :beam:). The only reason I would wear such a t-shirt is to make people focus on me being gay. Before you use you Judiasm argument, that is not the same, because they do not wear their cloths to flaunt themselves off as Jews. They do it out of religious conviction. I WANT people to know that I am a nice person. I WANT people to know that I am an honest person. I WANT people to be fooled into thinking that I am an intelligent person. I don't want people focusing on my sexual preferences though, because that is not what defines me. You can handsome and ugly people gay and straight. Smart and dumb. Nasty and nice, etc. Do you really want people to think of you as a sexual preference (ie a 'gay man') and not a person? Gay activist claim to want the very opposite, yet they define themselves as being gay and always call attention to it. If they want it to be no more important than 'do you like sugar with your coffee?', then why don't they act like it? If it is that important to them, then it will be that important to others.

They have a right to express themselves. Any nudity or lewd conduct in public is against the law and should be prosecuted. Other than that, tough it out.

[Marshal Murat]

Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.

Quick, send this the MSNBC. Ha-HA Dick Cheney, found out at last!

[Vuk]

Ya know, I bet if we just made sure they had civil rights, you'd see them acting out a lot less. Pass gay marriage and you'll get a lot less marching in the streets.



Political change often requires that you demand people's attention.



They have a right to express themselves. Any nudity or lewd conduct in public is against the law and should be prosecuted. Other than that, tough it out.

First of all, gay marriage has nothing to do with gay rights. Marriage is a religious institution that is recognized by the states, and it has religious underpinnings. For that reason people of religious persuasion want to protect the word, but it is that, just a word. A gay wanting marriage (a Christian concept of a union before God between a man and a woman) is like me wanting to have gay sex with my gf! The fuss about gay marriage is just another way to grab attention. Heck, just make their own union for pities sake! I personally think that the government should stop recognizing 'marriage' and only recognize unions. I think it is the church that should recognize marriages. Sure, you got some gays of religious persuasion who think that the religious institution applies to them, but the ones I know who get up in arms about it hate religion...and still want to enter into an institution of religious values...go figure. And I hate to clue you ATPG, but the DO have rights and they still demand attention. I am not saying that they are evil for it, but you asked why they get so much attention, and that is why, because they demand it. And like I said, from my own real life experience, those gays who act like normal people (ei don't go around flaunting their gayness at every opportunity) are treated exactly like everyone else. No one gives a toot that they are gay. They don't hide it, they don't avoid PDA, they just don't flaunt it like show-offs every two seconds. When religious people go out of their way to flaunt their religion and start defining themselves to everyone as religious, and wearing religious tshirts, and going on parades, and cannot have a conversation without bringing it up, people roll their eyes at them and people start feeling uncomfortable around them and even feeling animosity toward religion. It is the same thing with gays. If you want people to just relax and except you, then relax and stress what you have in common, not what is different. People need to see that you are a normal person like them, and that you have something in common. When you only ever stress what is different, you will be seen as a freak because you are not like anyone else. That is a stigma that you have to work for. I guarantee you that if gays stopped demanding attention and were just themselves, 99% of any anti-gay fever would dissipate. They could continue to work for any equal rights that they think they do not have without being a bunch of annoying, trollish, show-offs. I have little respect for anyone, man or woman, straight or gay, who goes marching in the street to demand that you pay attention to his/her sexual preference. I'll respect the gay who don't, but for being people, not for being gay. I don't respect anyone for being straight, and I ain't gonna respect anyone for being gay. The straight people I respect for being good people, and the gay people I respect for being good people. There is no line in my mind. The attention hungry retards who want to draw attention to their sexual preferences/fetishes/whatever, I have very little respect for, straight or gay, simply because they seem like pretty base, obnoxious people.


Saw this gem on another forum

Wouldn't happen to be the Armoury would it?

[Samurai Waki]

So you think people should stop acting the way they want? :inquisitive:

And I'd be all for trying to convince my gf to have gay sex. My wife usually just rolls her eyes when I bring up the subject.

[Vuk]

So you think people should stop acting the way they want? :inquisitive:

And I'd be all for trying to convince my gf to have gay sex. My wife usually just rolls her eyes when I bring up the subject.

Gay sex is not butt sex, it is sex between two people of the same sex. If you are trying to convince your gf to have a sex change, then I can understand the eyerolling. My point was that gay marriage was as much an oxymoron as straightgaysex. No, anyone can act the way they want as long as they do not break laws, but that does not mean you have to like it. If I started dressing up as a darned peacock and acting as a retard, people wouldn't be able to stop me, but they would still think of me as a retard. Act however you want, but if you act like a retard, you will be thought of as a retard. As far as acting like a retard where it is within the law, but still infringes on people's rights (gay parades, ect), I think that is down right rude and I think of people who participate in those things as rude. It is like the fetish parade that went through Chicago when I was there. I don't care if people like dressing in leather and beating each other within an inch of their lives, but please do not push it on me and keep me awake all night and stop me from going into the street. I got my own sex life, but I am not trying to push it on people who do not give a crap. That is rude and infringes on people's rights to privacy, whether the law recognizes that or not.

[Tribesman]

First of all, gay marriage has nothing to do with gay rights.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:


Marriage is a religious institution that is recognized by the states, and it has religious underpinnings.
No it isn't , marriage is a social contract between two people , religion is not neccesary .

[Brenus]

"Marriage is a religious institution" Was. Marriage is now a contract between 2 adults. The proof is you can divorce without religion's consent and you need lawyers to do so. And to pay duties stamps. Expensive ones...:beam:

[Askthepizzaguy]

That's right, I forgot religious rule number 837; Atheists can't get married. It doesn't count because God doesn't bless their union therefore they aren't really married therefore their children are all Godless sinning "bastards" (correct term if their parents weren't married in the "eyes of God").

I love how exclusionary certain religions are. I once thought of the Bible as being good and Christianity as one of the better religions, but the more I see the "pious" pontificate and preach and persecute, the more I see that it is no better than radical Islam or Scientology. It's looking more and more like a hateful, exclusionary, divisive, holier-than-thou cult which is a detriment to all mankind, to me. That being said, moderate Christians don't bother me. But you Bible-thumpers who are so consumed by it that you're paranoid and judgmental towards non-Christians should really get over yourselves. You are TOO OBSESSED with gay people. Why don't you speak out against the true evils of society more? Like female circumcision, religious persecution and intolerance, forced conscription of children, aggressive warfare, racism, sexism, gang violence, widespread drug abuse, rape, poverty, hunger, curable diseases killing the poor, dictatorships oppressing their people, and so on?

All I ever hear is gay, gay, gay. Nothing else seems to matter to you, which is messed up.

God can burn them in hell, but you should leave them alone. And since atheists can get married and have it not affect your "Godly" marriage, and polygamists in Utah can get married and not have it affect your "Godly" marriage, and Britney Spears can get divorced just hours after getting married and not have it affect your "Godly" marriage, and Bill Clinton can diddle an intern and not have it affect your "Godly" marriage, and people can marry immigrants so they can get into this country and not have it affect your "Godly" marriage, and intergendered or transgendered people can legally choose a sex and get married anyway and not have it affect your "Godly" marriage, and gay couples are allowed to be together, and they are allowed in many cases to have civil unions, then what is the big flipping deal with letting them get married?

I'm not sure why I bother. The answers I've been getting in response are actually kind of sad. I keep forgetting; this is religion. And that means we have to ignore the logical part of our brains and just nod and say "God said so" as if we speak with God on a two-way radio. I'm getting frustrated so I'm going to voluntarily take a break from this discussion for now. I'm feeling that one side, more than the other, is giving an honest attempt to bridge the gap, and the other side is just being divisive, stubborn, and bigoted.

Thankfully our society allows us to resolve our differences with a vote. Once the votes are counted and gay marriage becomes law, you can march in the streets and become "attention seekers" yourselves.

[Andres]

Marriage is a religious institution that is recognized by the states, and it has religious underpinnings.

No.

First, you have the contract, recognised by the state, with legal consequences adhered to it by law. No religion should influence law making and religion has nothing to do with the marriage "before the law".

You can add whatever religeous ritual to your marriage, if you want to, and call that ritual "marriage" as well, but that's your religious marriage, taking place in the private sphere where you can do whatever you want. It is not (or should not) be equal to the marriage before the law. Your religeous ritual called "marriage" is not the same as the marriage before the law, which has legal consequences.

At least, that's how it should be. Belgium has it right: a) you marry "before the law", an officer of the state (usually the mayor of your residence) takes note and that's it ; b) after your "legal marriage", you can go to church and marry again, for a priest (or you can perform whatever ritual you want or no ritual whatsoever) which has no legal consequences :2thumbsup:

Strict separation between church and state, as it should be in any modern, civilised society.

:knight:

[Askthepizzaguy]

No.

First, you have the contract, recognised by the state, with legal consequences adhered to it by law. No religion should influence law making and religion has nothing to do with the marriage "before the law".

You can add whatever religeous ritual to your marriage, if you want to, and call that ritual "marriage" as well, but that's your religious marriage, taking place in the private sphere where you can do whatever you want. It is not (or should not) be equal to the marriage before the law. Your religeous ritual called "marriage" is not the same as the marriage before the law, which has legal consequences.

At least, that's how it should be. Belgium has it right: a) you marry "before the law", an officer of the state (usually the mayor of your residence) takes note and that's it ; b) after your "legal marriage", you can go to church and marry again, for a priest (or you can perform whatever ritual you want or no ritual whatsoever) which has no legal consequences :2thumbsup:

Strict separation between church and state, as it should be in any modern, civilised society.

:knight:

:applause:

That's the only sane choice, in my opinion. I still go for breaky-wakeys now before I pop a blood vessel.

[Rhyfelwyr]

But you Bible-thumpers who are so consumed by it that you're paranoid and judgmental towards non-Christians should really get over yourselves. You are TOO OBSESSED with gay people. Why don't you speak out against the true evils of society more? Like female circumcision, religious persecution and intolerance, forced conscription of children, aggressive warfare, racism, sexism, gang violence, widespread drug abuse, rape, poverty, hunger, curable diseases killing the poor, dictatorships oppressing their people, and so on?

All I ever hear is gay, gay, gay. Nothing else seems to matter to you, which is messed up.

Because you still agree with us on that, it wouldn't make for a very interesting discussion would it?

Except for the religious intolerance bit... not everyone has secular values.

[Vuk]

No.

First, you have the contract, recognised by the state, with legal consequences adhered to it by law. No religion should influence law making and religion has nothing to do with the marriage "before the law".

You can add whatever religeous ritual to your marriage, if you want to, and call that ritual "marriage" as well, but that's your religious marriage, taking place in the private sphere where you can do whatever you want. It is not (or should not) be equal to the marriage before the law. Your religeous ritual called "marriage" is not the same as the marriage before the law, which has legal consequences.

At least, that's how it should be. Belgium has it right: a) you marry "before the law", an officer of the state (usually the mayor of your residence) takes note and that's it ; b) after your "legal marriage", you can go to church and marry again, for a priest (or you can perform whatever ritual you want or no ritual whatsoever) which has no legal consequences :2thumbsup:

Strict separation between church and state, as it should be in any modern, civilised society.

:knight:

Marriage is a religious institution that was adopted by the government. That now means that there are two institutions, the legal, and the religious. I never said there was not seperation of church and state, but the point is that marriage was defined by religion, and the state adopted it. Christians are worried that by the State changing the legal definition, it will cheapen the religious definition. That is why they seek to protect the meaning of the legal definition.



That's right, I forgot religious rule number 837; Atheists can't get married. It doesn't count because God doesn't bless their union therefore they aren't really married therefore their children are all Godless sinning "bastards" (correct term if their parents weren't married in the "eyes of God").

I love how exclusionary certain religions are. I once thought of the Bible as being good and Christianity as one of the better religions, but the more I see the "pious" pontificate and preach and persecute, the more I see that it is no better than radical Islam or Scientology. It's looking more and more like a hateful, exclusionary, divisive, holier-than-thou cult which is a detriment to all mankind, to me. That being said, moderate Christians don't bother me. But you Bible-thumpers who are so consumed by it that you're paranoid and judgmental towards non-Christians should really get over yourselves. You are TOO OBSESSED with gay people. Why don't you speak out against the true evils of society more? Like female circumcision, religious persecution and intolerance, forced conscription of children, aggressive warfare, racism, sexism, gang violence, widespread drug abuse, rape, poverty, hunger, curable diseases killing the poor, dictatorships oppressing their people, and so on?

All I ever hear is gay, gay, gay. Nothing else seems to matter to you, which is messed up.

God can burn them in hell, but you should leave them alone. And since atheists can get married and have it not affect your "Godly" marriage, and polygamists in Utah can get married and not have it affect your "Godly" marriage, and Britney Spears can get divorced just hours after getting married and not have it affect your "Godly" marriage, and Bill Clinton can diddle an intern and not have it affect your "Godly" marriage, and people can marry immigrants so they can get into this country and not have it affect your "Godly" marriage, and intergendered or transgendered people can legally choose a sex and get married anyway and not have it affect your "Godly" marriage, and gay couples are allowed to be together, and they are allowed in many cases to have civil unions, then what is the big flipping deal with letting them get married?

I'm not sure why I bother. The answers I've been getting in response are actually kind of sad. I keep forgetting; this is religion. And that means we have to ignore the logical part of our brains and just nod and say "God said so" as if we speak with God on a two-way radio. I'm getting frustrated so I'm going to voluntarily take a break from this discussion for now. I'm feeling that one side, more than the other, is giving an honest attempt to bridge the gap, and the other side is just being divisive, stubborn, and bigoted.

Thankfully our society allows us to resolve our differences with a vote. Once the votes are counted and gay marriage becomes law, you can march in the streets and become "attention seekers" yourselves.

ATPG, no offense, but you are the most closed minded person I have ever talked to. You are so sure of everything and your opinions on everything so set that you constantly imagine people saying things they never said. Arguing with you is annoying and pointless, as I consistently have to spend the first half of my post pointing out to you that I did not say half the things you think I did. The reason you always put words in other people's mouths is because you think that you know everything, and you assume way too much. Don't assume, it makes an :daisy: out of you and me. Words to live by.



That's right, I forgot religious rule number 837; Atheists can't get married. It doesn't count because God doesn't bless their union therefore they aren't really married therefore their children are all Godless sinning "bastards" (correct term if their parents weren't married in the "eyes of God").

First of all, I myself expressed my opinion that the war over gay marriage was silly on both parts. I was simply trying to explain to you WHY it is that Christians get upset about it, since you admitted that you did not understand. People can do whatever they want under the legal definition of the law. And I hate to clue you, but christians do get upset when people abuse and misuse the institution. It is supposed to be sacred, and what motivates people to live good lives and stay together. There is plenty of outrage about people not taking marriage seriously.


I love how exclusionary certain religions are. I once thought of the Bible as being good and Christianity as one of the better religions, but the more I see the "pious" pontificate and preach and persecute, the more I see that it is no better than radical Islam or Scientology. It's looking more and more like a hateful, exclusionary, divisive, holier-than-thou cult which is a detriment to all mankind, to me. That being said, moderate Christians don't bother me. But you Bible-thumpers who are so consumed by it that you're paranoid and judgmental towards non-Christians should really get over yourselves. You are TOO OBSESSED with gay people. Why don't you speak out against the true evils of society more? Like female circumcision, religious persecution and intolerance, forced conscription of children, aggressive warfare, racism, sexism, gang violence, widespread drug abuse, rape, poverty, hunger, curable diseases killing the poor, dictatorships oppressing their people, and so on?

All I ever hear is gay, gay, gay. Nothing else seems to matter to you, which is messed up.


All you ever hear is gay, gay, gay? Maybe that is your heart trying to tell you something. :clown:
Seriously though, how can you compare Christianity to radical islam? You say that because Christians want to protect marriage that they are as bad as extremists who kill and torture? (and this is after in a previous thread you said that there was no difference in living conditions in America and Cuba) I think you should try to be a little more decerning.

It's looking more and more like a hateful, exclusionary, divisive, holier-than-thou cult which is a detriment to all mankind, to me. That being said, moderate Christians don't bother me. But you Bible-thumpers who are so consumed by it that you're paranoid and judgmental towards non-Christians should really get over yourselves.

Christians are the paranoid ones? a hateful, exclusionary, divisive, holier-than-thou cult which is a detriment to all mankind
hmm...The protection of marriage has nothing to do with disliking or distrusting gays. It is because they believe that God made something with a meaning, and when you try to change that meaning you are twisting God's words. And as I said above, legal marriage stemmed from religious marriage, so they see the need to protect legal marriage in order to safeguard religious marriage. It is not that they are trying to protect it from evil people seeking to kill them, but that they are trying to preserve God's wishes. They would be just as upset if it was changed to a union between a man and a table, or a horse and a pig. They believe that it is between a man and woman, and anything else is not marriage. It could be equal to it, but it is not marriage. You bash the Christians for being exclusionary for that? It is a darned religious institution given to them by their God! That would be like me saying that Jews are exclusionary because I cannot make my dog a Rabbi! I want the :daisy: legal definition of a police man changed so that my pig can be one! STOP BEING EXCLUSIONARY!!!!! Get the point?! It is a darned word! It has a meaning! It has nothing to do with protecting against evil people, it has to do with preserving an institution. Are Jews evil and exclusionary for wanting to protect the institution of Rabbis? For keeping my dog out? They are not picking on my dog, they are just not gonna call him something he isn't! Since when is marriage such a great and important thing that not being able to use the word means that you are persecuted? As I said before, I think the state should get rid of marriage as a legal institution altogether, and end all the fuss. The entire argument on both sides is stupid! I believe that gays and straights should be given equal rights in their relationships, but a gay union is no more a marriage than a man and a woman having sex is gay sex! I don't see any straight people insisting on being able to call their unions 'gay'. It is ridiculous for gays to fight to change the meaning of the word.
And all Christians ever talk about is gay people, huh? Funny, I hardly ever hear them mentioned by the Christians I know. In fact, it is non-Christians at school who I hear talking about gays all the time. I think it is you who is obsessed ATPG, not me. Personally, I couldn't give a flying :daisy: about gays. If they want to do it, that is their problem. What I don't like is ANYONE, gay or straight pushing their darned sexual preferences in my face! I don't bloody care and I don't want to be bothered with it!


God can burn them in hell, but you should leave them alone. And since atheists can get married and have it not affect your "Godly" marriage, and polygamists in Utah can get married and not have it affect your "Godly" marriage, and Britney Spears can get divorced just hours after getting married and not have it affect your "Godly" marriage, and Bill Clinton can diddle an intern and not have it affect your "Godly" marriage, and people can marry immigrants so they can get into this country and not have it affect your "Godly" marriage, and intergendered or transgendered people can legally choose a sex and get married anyway and not have it affect your "Godly" marriage, and gay couples are allowed to be together, and they are allowed in many cases to have civil unions, then what is the big flipping deal with letting them get married?


I don't think gays will burn in hell ATPG, that is your opinion. In fact, you are assuming that I believe in hell...which I don't. You are making an absolute fool out of yourself. As I said above, Christians DO get bent out of shape about other abuses of marriage. They make a big deal about gay marriage because gays make a big deal about it.


they are allowed in many cases to have civil unions, then what is the big flipping deal with letting them get married?

My point exactly ATPG, why is it a big deal?! Why is it a big deal to them? Why do they need to fight to change a legal definition stemming from a religious institution that will result in the cheapening of the religious institution in the minds of the followers of that religion? Why cause trouble over something of no importance at all. Marriage does not help gays one bit if they can get the same rights in civil unions. I think all couples should have the same rights, but I also think it is silly for them to instigate a fight with the Christian community over a word that the Christians view as theirs. The gays got their own words too, let the Christians have theirs. As I said, I do not think that the state should recognize either.


I'm not sure why I bother. The answers I've been getting in response are actually kind of sad. I keep forgetting; this is religion. And that means we have to ignore the logical part of our brains and just nod and say "God said so" as if we speak with God on a two-way radio. I'm getting frustrated so I'm going to voluntarily take a break from this discussion for now. I'm feeling that one side, more than the other, is giving an honest attempt to bridge the gap, and the other side is just being divisive, stubborn, and bigoted.


A perfect example of your unbreakable preconceptions at work here ATPG. That is the view you have of religious people, and rather than base your view on what they say, you have been basing your perception of what they say on that view. You show here (as you have in previous posts) that you have absolute contempt for those of different opinions than you. They have different opinions and do not believe that what I KNOW is right is right! THEY MUST BE ILLOGICAL BIGOTS! Maybe what you KNOW is right is not. Maybe you are not even paying attention to what I am saying because you are seeing what you want to see. I got better things to do than argue with someone who has no intention of treating me with any respect or taking anything I say seriously.


Oh yeah, and if gay marriage becomes legal, no, I won't march in the street, and I won't dress like a peacock.

[Andres]

Marriage is a religious institution that was adopted by the government. That now means that there are two institutions, the legal, and the religious. I never said there was not seperation of church and state, but the point is that marriage was defined by religion, and the state adopted it. Christians are worried that by the State changing the legal definition, it will cheapen the religious definition.


Then those christians fail to make the distinction between legal and religious marriage.

A misunderstanding is not a justification for a difference in treatment between gay couples and straight couples.

Gays should be allowed to marry for the law. Religion is private, church and whatever religious institution can decide who they want to marry, that's none of the state's business. But when it comes to the legal marriage, gays should be allowed to marry. There's no justification for the current discrimination.

[Vuk]

Then those christians fail to make the distinction between legal and religious marriage.

A misunderstanding is not a justification for a difference in treatment between gay couples and straight couples.

Gays should be allowed to marry for the law. Religion is private, church and whatever religious institution can decide who they want to marry, that's none of the state's business. But when it comes to the legal marriage, gays should be allowed to marry. There's no justification for the current discrimination.

Difference in treatment? Christians are not arguing that they be treated differently, simply that they shouldn't apply (what Christians see as) the legal representation of a Christian institution to themselves in a way that will change its meaning. Christians are afraid that if legal marriage is changed, that religious marriage will follow. They are two entirely different things in reality, but in perception, the same. As I said, it is about as much discriminating as not letting my dog be legally recognized as a Rabbi! You can see why it means a lot to Christians (because it is literally sacred to them), but why should it mean so much to gays who want to change the legal definition? To use my dog example, you could see why Jews would justifiably be very angry if I tried to make my dog legally classified as a Rabbi, but it would be hard to understand why it would mean anything to me or my dog. As I said, I think that marriage should not be recognized in any form, but as it is, it is impossible to seperate it from its religious origins. (simply because of the way that it is percieved) Don't let there be any difference in treatment, but if it means that much to them, let them keep their silly word. They got a claim of thousands of years on the institution.

[Andres]

Difference in treatment? Christians are not arguing that they be treated differently, simply that they shouldn't apply (what Christians see as) the legal representation of a Christian institution to themselves in a way that will change its meaning. Christians are afraid that if legal marriage is changed, that religious marriage will follow. They are two entirely different things in reality, but in perception, the same.

If legal and religious marriage are different in reality, than the perception that they are the same, is wrong.



You can see why it means a lot to Christians (because it is literally sacred to them), but why should it mean so much to gays who want to change the legal definition?

Now, this is where the mistake is made.

One of the underlying principles of our legal systems is equality or, in it's negative definition non discrimination.

That's the principle.

If you say "straight couples can marry, gay couples can not"; then you are asking for different treament. It's not up to the gay people to back up their demand of being allowed to being married with sufficient reasons; by asking to be allowed to marry, they simply ask the application of a principle: equal treatment.

It's up to those opposing gay marriage to give convincing arguments as to why gays should not be allowed to marry.

Asking gays to explain why they should be allowed to be married, is turning the world upside down, more: it's infuriating.

Equal treatment is the norm, the people opposing gay marriage demand the exception. If you want an exception on equal treatment, then you have to justify it. So far, I have seen no justification.

No, religion is not a justification, since we're talking about legal marriage, not the religious institution. Seperation between church and state; another of our fine principles.

The more you think about it, the more opposing gay marriage equals throwing overboard modern principles that are the basis of our current societies.

[Vuk]

If legal and religious marriage are different in reality, than the perception that they are the same, is wrong.




Now, this is where the mistake is made.

One of the underlying principles of our legal systems is equality or, in it's negative definition non discrimination.

That's the principle.

If you say "straight couples can marry, gay couples can not"; then you are asking for different treament. It's not up to the gay people to back up their demand of being allowed to being married with sufficient reasons; by asking to be allowed to marry, they simply ask the application of a principle: equal treatment.

It's up to those opposing gay marriage to give convincing arguments as to why gays should not be allowed to marry.

Asking gays to explain why they should be allowed to be married, is turning the world upside down, more: it's infuriating.

Equal treatment is the norm, the people opposing gay marriage demand the exception. If you want an exception on equal treatment, then you have to justify it. So far, I have seen no justification.

No, religion is not a justification, since we're talking about legal marriage, not the religious institution. Seperation between church and state; another of our fine principles.

The more you think about it, the more opposing gay marriage equals throwing overboard modern principles that are the basis of our current societies.

So if there is a legal institution of Rabbis and I want my dog to be a Rabbi I can make him a legal Rabbi? THAT is where the connection to religion comes. Christians want their institution to be recognized by the state, and it is being. Still, it is a religious institution being recognized by the state. It is seperate, and the church doesn't control it, but it stemmed from religion, and represents a religious institution. That is why changing it would cheapen the religious institution in their minds. Likewise say there is a legally recognized position of Rabbi (not sure if there is or not), and the government recognizes them as people who have the legal right to declare food Kosher. Why should non-Jews care about being Rabbis and being able to declare food Kosher? Is it unequal treatment to say that they cannot? (or that their dogs cannot be Rabbis :P) Sure, the state could make it that tables are Rabbis, because it is a seperate institution, but it is REPRESENTING a religious institution. As I said, best to do away with legal institutions that represent religious institutions, but as long as you have them, you should respect that religion's definition. And how is it being treated differently? If they have the same rights, they will be treated the same. Likewise, me declaring myself a Rabbi is not gonna help me and suddenly make me equal with the world. I understand your point Andres, but I think you should be arguing for absolving the legal institution of marriage, not changing it. Surely you can see how changing it would weaken the religious institution in the minds of Christians. Why do that? Like with my Rabbi example, why do that? My dog being a Rabbi doesn't help me at all, I just tread on Jewish tradition and get them angry with me. That is why I say, it is sillyness on both sides. Marriage should be defined by the religious definition as long as it exists, but I think it would be much better and take care of the problem to get rid of government representation of religious institutions.

[Andres]

So if there is a legal institution of Rabbis and I want my dog to be a Rabbi I can make him a legal Rabbi?

I don't keep myself busy with "what if there would be". There isn't. And bringing a dog into it, makes your argument very silly, so I don't take it serious. A dog is not a human being.



Christians want their institution to be recognized by the state, and it is being. Still, it is a religious institution being recognized by the state.

No, it is not a religious institution. There's legal marriage and there's the religious institution. Those are NOT the same, despite of how many times you claim that it is. It's not. Get over it.


That is why changing it would cheapen the religious institution in their minds.

Indeed, in their minds and only in their minds. They ask for unequal treatment, they have to bring good reasons. "I think it will cheapen my private, non of the state's business, religious institution" is not a justification for discriminiation.


I understand your point Andres, but I think you should be arguing for absolving the legal institution of marriage, not changing it.

Ah, now we're talking. That's something completely different and I do consider it an alternative solution. Get rid of mariage entirely and there can be no longer discrimination.

However, if people are going to live together, be it two or more persons, then it is desirable imo to have some form of civil union, a legal framework which the parties involved can or cannot accept, including legal consequences. If people are going to share their lives and belongings, there should be the possibility of some legal protection and/or consequences. But then again, some will say that's the same as marriage, but it's just no longer called marriage. Still, a legal framework for a long lasting relationship is reasonable and should be there, at least as an option you can chose for.


Surely you can see how changing it would weaken the religious institution in the minds of Christians.

And there, I disagree again; it is wrong to mix up the legal marriage with the religious one. They are seperate. The fact that a part of the religious people fail to understand that cannot be a justification for discrimination.


Marriage should be defined by the religious definition as long as it exists, but I think it would be much better and take care of the problem to get rid of government representation of religious institutions.

The legal marriage is not a religious institution.

[Vuk]

I don't keep myself busy with "what if there would be". There isn't. And bringing a dog into it, makes your argument very silly, so I don't take it serious. A dog is not a human being.




No, it is not a religious institution. There's legal marriage and there's the religious institution. Those are NOT the same, despite of how many times you claim that it is. It's not. Get over it.



Indeed, in their minds and only in their minds. They ask for unequal treatment, they have to bring good reasons. "I think it will cheapen my private, non of the state's business, religious institution" is not a justification for discriminiation.



Ah, now we're talking. That's something completely different and I do consider it an alternative solution. Get rid of mariage entirely and there can be no longer discrimination.

However, if people are going to live together, be it two or more persons, then it is desirable imo to have some form of civil union, a legal framework which the parties involved can or cannot accept, including legal consequences. If people are going to share their lives and belongings, there should be the possibility of some legal protection and/or consequences. But then again, some will say that's the same as marriage, but it's just no longer called marriage. Still, a legal framework for a long lasting relationship is reasonable and should be there, at least as an option you can chose for.



And there, I disagree again; it is wrong to mix up the legal marriage with the religious one. They are seperate. The fact that a part of the religious people fail to understand that cannot be a justification for discrimination.



The legal marriage is not a religious institution.

You're missing my point Andres. I did NOT say that they are the same institution in anything but perception. They ARE different institutions, but the legal one is a representation of the religious one. It is the legal form of a religious institution, and for that reason, I think should be gotten rid of. Marriage was a religious institution that religious people wanted represented by and protected by the state. That is what legal marriage is/was. That is why I think we can both agree that it should be gotten rid of. As I said, there should be civil unions that are in all things but name marriage, and gays should be able to have them. I think that if you are going to keep marriage, that you should still have these unions. The thing at stake here is the word, because it is take from religious doctrine. THAT is what Christians want to protect, as Jews would want to protect the word Rabbi if I wanted to legally make myself a Rabbi so that I could demand equal treatment. I am all for gays getting equal treatment, but the word marriage has religious underpinnings and it makes no sense to try to take that word from Christians and make them accept a different meaning than what God told them. That is why I say it is sillyness on both sides. Why highjack the word Marriage? It is as silly as me trying to highjack the word Rabbi. It belongs to a religion and you should let them have it. Why anger Jews for no reason by making a legal definition of their word different than their religious one? Likewise, why anger Christians by doing the same? Give gays equal treatment by all means, but there is no sense aggravating people of religious persuasion by trying to legally redefine the institutions that they think God gave them. Just call it a :daisy: civil union and get rid of the legal term marriage! Don't go messing with something Christians think comes from God.

[Kralizec]

Even if the term "marriage" has religious overtones it has evolved past it, and I'm pretty sure the term was used before most of Europe became christian. I see where you're coming from Vuk, but even if the institution was renamed to Civil Union people will still talk about getting married and marriages, gay people included.

[Tribesman]

Marriage is a religious institution that was adopted by the government.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::lau gh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Its a social institution that was adopted by religions .

[Seamus Fermanagh]

And I'd be all for trying to convince my gf to have gay sex. My wife usually just rolls her eyes when I bring up the subject.

So why not have the gf talk to her about it.....:devilish:

[Vuk]

Even if the term "marriage" has religious overtones it has evolved past it, and I'm pretty sure the term was used before most of Europe became christian. I see where you're coming from Vuk, but even if the institution was renamed to Civil Union people will still talk about getting married and marriages, gay people included.

Let them, that is a private choice. The thing is that the word became used to describe the institution that Christians believe that God ordained. It is a thing before God, not man. To get a little Biblical on you, did people go to get married before Caesar or God? They did it "In the eyes of God" because it was a pledge they made before God, and God held them accountable, not the State. From a Christian perspective, it should not be a State institution either. There should be a State institution of civil unions, not marriages. Gays are not gonna be treated any better if they highjack a word that has sacred proportions to a large amount of the population. They are gonna be treated exactly as they would if the name was civil union instead, only they are gonna have Christians mad. If I am living in a Muslim country and I am not being treated fairly, I would argue for equal treatment, but I would not try to highjack religious words that are sacred to them and that do not apply to me. If a gay has a RELIGIOUS argument that they are entitled to enter into the institution with their gay partner before God, I would listen to their argument. That is a matter of church, not state though. (and I am not sure if it is just my experience or what, but by far the majority of gays I know are non-religious, Jewish, or Muslim. I only know one gay who claimed to be Christian and he recently announced his disgust for Christianity because he though it condemned his lifestyle. I wonder if there is statistics on that.

[Vuk]

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::lau gh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Its a social institution that was adopted by religions .

Wrong Tribesy. The word marriage over the centuries came to describe the Holy Institution ordaned by God. That is what it still means today, and the legal definition of it was adopted as a way to recognize and protect the sanctity of those religious marriages.

EDIT: There are thousands of different types of human bonds and contracts, and marriage through the centuries became the word to represent the specific one sanctified by God. I will try to look up a little linguistic history on the word itsself, but I have seen it proven before in a documentary and read it in a history book that European governments, and then colonial governments, and then the US government adopted legal marriage as a way to protect the rights of those in the religious institution and recognize it as valid.

[PBI]

Wrong Tribesy. The word marriage over the centuries came to describe the Holy Institution ordaned by God. That is what it still means today, and the legal definition of it was adopted as a way to recognize and protect the sanctity of those religious marriages.


No, that is one meaning of the word. It has however evolved to have other meanings, such as to describe a couple who have been "married" by the state and thus enjoy certain legal protections (and social status) with no overt religious connotations.

The state, and certainly the church, do not and should not have the power to dictate the "proper" usage of the English language, nor to outlaw usage of words in what they consider an incorrect sense. If those concerned about gay marriage are truly worried that the use of the term will lead to confusion with their own religious institution, they are free to coin a new term to describe a specifically religious marriage.

[Samurai Waki]

So why not have the gf talk to her about it.....:devilish:

bwahaha. Unfortunately, it seems I got one of the completely straight ones. :oops:

[Vuk]

bwahaha. Unfortunately, it seems I got one of the completely straight ones. :oops:

lol, I prefer my girls to be interested in me, not other girls. :P

[Tribesman]

Wrong Tribesy. The word marriage over the centuries came to describe the Holy Institution ordaned by God.
Talk about getting things back to front :dizzy2:
So lets see if I can put it politely without insulting your "intelligence" too much
errrrr...if the word became something over the centuries what were its origins before it became that new thing ?

[Samurai Waki]

lol, I prefer my girls to be interested in me, not other girls. :P

You'll never have a three way with that attitude! :wink:

[Vuk]

You'll never have a three way with that attitude! :wink:

lol, that's not a goal of mine. ~;) I would rather have three times the sex with my gal. :P

[Samurai Waki]

lol, that's not a goal of mine. ~;) I would rather have three times the sex with my gal. :P

Just wait until you get married, and you'll be getting 1/3rd. :laugh4:

[Vuk]

Just wait until you get married, and you'll be getting 1/3rd. :laugh4:

lol, then when I triple it we will be back to normal. ~;)

[Samurai Waki]

Thats what you say now... :laugh4:

In all honesty, staying with one person the whole way through is probably for the best. Doesn't mean you can't run off to the land of Sexual Fantasies every now and again. :clown:

[Vuk]

Thats what you say now... :laugh4:

In all honesty, staying with one person the whole way through is probably for the best. Doesn't mean you can't run off to the land of Sexual Fantasies every now and again. :clown:

lol, sure, as long as it is with her. ~;) Just because you are with the same woman does not mean that you can't spice things up. Actually, it will be better, because you will have already tried the same things together and always be able to explore. :P Ok, I just got too sexual I think, logging off for the night. :P

[Samurai Waki]

lol, sure, as long as it is with her. ~;) Just because you are with the same woman does not mean that you can't spice things up. Actually, it will be better, because you will have already tried the same things together and always be able to explore. :P Ok, I just got too sexual I think, logging off for the night. :P

gigga-da-gigga-da-gigga-da alright. :2thumbsup:

[DemonArchangel]

Wow. What have I done?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Wow. What have I done?

:laugh4:

[Askthepizzaguy]

Likewise, why anger Christians by doing the same? Give gays equal treatment by all means, but there is no sense aggravating people of religious persuasion by trying to legally redefine the institutions that they think God gave them. Just call it a :daisy: civil union and get rid of the legal term marriage! Don't go messing with something Christians think comes from God.

I don't think that standing in the way of what two consenting adults want to do with their lives, affording them the same rights and privileges as the rest of humanity, is something we should do just to make sure Christians don't get offended. If you've already conceded that gays have a right to be gay, have a right to do gay things together, and can be afforded ALL the rights of a couple, and the only sticking point now is that you don't like it compared to your "holier than theirs" marriage, it's time to let it go. They are going to call it marriage. You can't really stop them from getting married in their hearts, and you don't, apparently, want to stop them from having all the legal rights afforded to marriage. The bottom line is it makes you feel all icky when you have their relationships compared to your more "Godly" form of love. But at the end of the day, you have to deal with things that are offensive to your religious sensibilities, and how you personally feel about the issue does not have any bearing on the matter. Saying it makes you sad for them to have equal treatment and the same word, when you're willing to give them equal treatment, is losing the argument. It is just a word. And Christians do not have a monopoly on marriage as a word, nor does any religion. And challenging someone's legal marriage purely on the grounds you don't like it called marriage, though you don't challenge anything they do otherwise... it's absurd.


ATPG, no offense, but you are the most closed minded person I have ever talked to.

I'm not the one standing in the way of the happiness of hundreds of millions of people simply because I don't like the word they wish to associate themselves with. There are more important things in life than quibbling over words. If you've already conceded that gay people are normal upstanding equal members of our society and should be afforded the same rights as anyone else, you've also afforded them the right to call their relationship a marriage. That's part of having equal rights. You cannot monopolize a word; other people get to use it too.

You may counter that if we shouldn't quibble over words, then why am I arguing?

You have to demonstrate why they can't use that word, otherwise they can freely use it by default. The responsibility of showing why marriage can only be as you define it to be is on you, otherwise you have no basis for stopping them from calling it what you like. All I've seen so far is your religion says it's not a good idea. Not a good enough reason.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I don't think that standing in the way of what two consenting adults want to do with their lives, affording them the same rights and privileges as the rest of humanity, is something we should do just to make sure Christians don't get offended. If you've already conceded that gays have a right to be gay, have a right to do gay things together, and can be afforded ALL the rights of a couple, and the only sticking point now is that you don't like it compared to your "holier than theirs" marriage, it's time to let it go. They are going to call it marriage. You can't really stop them from getting married in their hearts, and you don't, apparently, want to stop them from having all the legal rights afforded to marriage. The bottom line is it makes you feel all icky when you have their relationships compared to your more "Godly" form of love. But at the end of the day, you have to deal with things that are offensive to your religious sensibilities, and how you personally feel about the issue does not have any bearing on the matter. Saying it makes you sad for them to have equal treatment and the same word, when you're willing to give them equal treatment, is losing the argument. It is just a word. And Christians do not have a monopoly on marriage as a word, nor does any religion. And challenging someone's legal marriage purely on the grounds you don't like it called marriage, though you don't challenge anything they do otherwise... it's absurd.

Regardless of what many (most?) Christians want, this will become the dominant fact. It's been called marriage for centuries. Gays want to be married, not unioned. Gays and those who favor that viewpoint will label it "marriage" regardless of what governments or anyone else wants it called. If the churched shift their preferred label to some new term, gays will do so as well in order to continue their basic quest (having the gay lifestyle viewed as and treated as perfectly normal in all respects). So, unless we are ready to persecute them and force them back into the closet through discriminatory statutes and viscious social pressure, the issue is lost.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Regardless of what many (most?) Christians want, this will become the dominant fact. It's been called marriage for centuries. Gays want to be married, not unioned. Gays and those who favor that viewpoint will label it "marriage" regardless of what governments or anyone else wants it called. If the churched shift their preferred label to some new term, gays will do so as well in order to continue their basic quest (having the gay lifestyle viewed as and treated as perfectly normal in all respects). So, unless we are ready to persecute them and force them back into the closet through discriminatory statutes and viscious social pressure, the issue is lost.
:bow:
I used to be, regardless of my religion or lack thereof, on the opposing side of where I stand today. I wasn't raised in a "Godless" household. It did not seem to be intuitive to me to equate gay couples with straight ones. I at one time felt it was a moral versus immoral issue, and felt it had something to do with the family. It took a very long time and a lot of observation... but there is just no basis for the discrimination. What is inherently moral about straight couples? I've seen some really immoral ones. What is inherently immoral about gay couples? They're not hurting people or doing anything immoral by any definition I can come up with.

I'm not even over it. I still have issues where I don't really want to watch gay couples kissing. I'm not entirely thrilled about the situation, but... I recognize where that comes from, and it's societal pressure and rejection of that which isn't considered the norm by the majority. But it's been around all my life and I'm attempting to get over it. I readily admit that I'm not. However, I simply cannot argue any other way than for equality and non-discrimination, and ultimately every argument leads back to that, and other than religious concerns there is no basis for opposing it. If you were taught that the tides were caused by ships at sea for example, all your life that is what you knew was fact, it would seem counter-intuitive to consider the idea that the moon's gravitational pull has anything to do with it. Eventually you let go of what you thought you knew, and you accept that which seems strange to you at first. If you're taught all your life that gay couples are different or wrong, and straight couples are the only acceptable thing, and if gay marriage is called an abonimation... that is what you know to be true.

Gays want to be treated as equals (doesn't everyone?). There can be no special "marriage" just for them. You don't have to marry them at your church, just as I don't have to get married at your church, because that's a religious marriage not a legal one. You don't have to accept their idea of marriage in your heart, or in your church, you can preach what you please. It's freedom of speech. A church, to me, is a private organization with it's own rules. There are some very backward (from my perspective) people who wouldn't marry a couple who were of differing races. And I don't want the government to step in and force a church that believes something along those lines to reform. The government has little to do with church and religious marriage. Conversely, church has little to do with government and legal marriage. We never should have mixed the two, and we do well to remember the distinction.

I know marriage is not a religious concept, because atheists, agnostics, pagans, and many other followers of differing kinds of beliefs can fall in love and seek to be partners for life. And they take their marriage just as seriously as yours. When I get married I doubt it will be at a church because I don't belong to one. But my marriage is equal under the law, as it should be. If gay people have equal legal rights and protections as straight people, and they should, then they can get married at the same courthouse I can and their marriage will be treated the same.

The slippery slope argument doesn't follow. People will not be marrying their dogs or their furniture or their food. In the end, our diverse culture must respect things we don't understand. I myself don't understand and cannot fathom why circumcision should be legal, on males or females. I see them as the same thing, just different levels of severity. However, as frustrating and appalling as it is to me, I recognize that there are too many arguments in favor of allowing it to be an option for males, and it may in fact be unintentionally offensive to, say, Jewish people. So I have to accept that which I don't agree with or understand.

It's all part of living in a multicultural world that respects diversity and human rights. I think Scientology is a joke, but I have to accept that some people like it. I find Saudi Arabian restictions on women to be abhorrent. But I'm not willing to go to war over it. And if a Saudi woman were in the United States I couldn't tell her to take it off. I have to respect differences. They have a legal right to practice their religion... some have a legal right to practice circumcision. Some are demanding the equal rights they deserve, even if it makes some uncomfortable.

Yak, yak, yak yak yak. That's me, I just love to talk. :elephant:

[Vuk]

Regardless of what many (most?) Christians want, this will become the dominant fact. It's been called marriage for centuries. Gays want to be married, not unioned. Gays and those who favor that viewpoint will label it "marriage" regardless of what governments or anyone else wants it called. If the churched shift their preferred label to some new term, gays will do so as well in order to continue their basic quest (having the gay lifestyle viewed as and treated as perfectly normal in all respects). So, unless we are ready to persecute them and force them back into the closet through discriminatory statutes and viscious social pressure, the issue is lost.

So it will not be treated normally in all aspects unless they can legally have their union termed marriage? Otherwise they are being persecuted? Crap then, I am sick of this persecution! I will never be treated normally until I can legally be classified as a Rabbi! Darn those Jews trying to keep it to themselves and discriminated against everyone else!
And BTW, gays can call it whatever they want, the argument is over what the state calls it. That is why it should be classified as a union, and those who want can privately or through their church have it deemed a marriage. There are people who abhore the word marriage and do not want their relation to be termed marriage, so this would give everyone the choice. It would be a legal union, and they could choose to call it whatever they wanted in private.
You know what Seamus? You and ATPG are making it like 'marriage' is up on some tier above other unions; it isn't. There is nothing better or unequal about marriage compared to any other union. It is just a word that Christians judge as theirs, and redefining it will NOT make gays be treated normally in every aspect (the union will, whether it is called marriage or not), it will just insult and offend the church that the state sees fit to redefine a word they judge as theirs. Likewise with Rabbi, the government COULD make Rabbi a legal word for citizen if they wanted, then everyone would be equal!! ummm...no...they would just take a word that the Jews judge as theirs (even though they have no legal claim to it) and redefine the meaning which would not make anyone be treated any more equally, but simply offend and insult the Jewish community. Not that there is anything wrong or unequal about the general populous, but because it is a sacredly defined term, and changing the meaning is violating that sanctity. I don't feel that I am persecuted or not treated normally in everyway because I am not legally classified as a Rabbi, and if being called one means so much to me, I will simply start calling myself Rabbi Vuk. Likewise if I was gay, I would not feel persecuted because my relation was not legally termed a marriage, and if it meant anything to me, I would just call it one! Heck, I am a straight Christian and I don't call my relation a marriage, because it does not fit the technical criteria in the Bible. I am not offended or persecuted because of it, and it means nothing to me. If I wanted to be married I would get married, and if I wanted to the term to apply to me now, I would just tell people that I am married. The only thing I have now that makes me not be treated equal is that I do not have the rights of someone who is in a union or married. Give me them and call it a forevertango for all I care!

[Tribesman]

Heck, I am a straight Christian
Haggard used to shout that a lot .

[Vuk]

Haggard used to shout that a lot .

If I was gay, it would only help my argument Tribesy. Sorry to disappoint you, but the Vuk is one woman chasing wolf. :beam:

[Louis VI the Fat]

To watch the ugly face of homophobia in action, keep an eye out on Moscow this Saturday. A massive European Gay Parade (http://www.eurovision.tv/page/home) has been planned, broadcast Europe-wide.

And apart from this Eurovision Song Contest, another parade will take place on the streets of Moscow. Previous gay rights demonstrations resulted in massive bloodshed, with gays being beaten up in front of cameras by counter-protesters and police officers alike, to cheering crowds.

Gay rights demonstration (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,624286,00.html).

Gays and lesbians in Russia live dangerously, constantly encountering discrimination and often violence. A group of activists are planning to hold a march in Moscow to coincide with the Eurovision Song Contest this weekend despite a city ban on the parade.

[...]

"Homosexuality is the same as terrorism," asserts one of the Pushkin Square activists


Violence and discrimination are part of everyday life for homosexuals in Russia. Gay clubs are regularly attacked by hooligans, while openly gay people are excluded from events or ejected from polling stations. Participants in previous gay parades have been fired from their jobs, without notice and without any explanation, after their employers recognized them on television. At the beginning of October 2008, authorities in St. Petersburg sabotaged a film festival which had been organized by gays and lesbians. When the event was about to begin, militia and firefighters moved in and closed the venues, supposedly because of potential fire hazards.

Theoretically, the Russian constitution prohibits such discrimination. Theoretically, Russia, as a member of the Council of Europe, has to guarantee the freedom of expression and assembly. But the reality is very different. Dubious groups like the Orthodox Front are free to promote hate in public, but gays and lesbians have to hide.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Regardless of what many (most?) Christians want, this will become the dominant fact. It's been called marriage for centuries. Gays want to be married, not unioned. Gays and those who favor that viewpoint will label it "marriage" regardless of what governments or anyone else wants it called. I must deem this Christian-centred.

The word 'marriage' is older than Catholicism. It is older than the church. It is older than Moses. It is older than the Israelites. The word 'marriage' is ancient, and common throughout the Indo-European linguistic world.
Christianity claims an exclusive right to a word that predates the church by millenia.


The act of marriage predates the church by countless generations too, nobody is entirely sure how old it is. Very certain is that Europeans have been wed to one another for millenia before the birth of Christ.


The church is a modern invention. A totalitarian institution that shamelessly claims monopolies on much older, truly ancient institutions, such as marriage, harvest feasts, burials.

It is not gays who want to take traditional marriage away from Christians. It is on the contrary, Christians who seek to take the ancient tradition of marriage away from any and all non-Christians. :no:

[Tribesman]

Sorry to disappoint you, but the Vuk is one woman chasing wolf.
Thats what Haggard used to shout , christians are viriile have lots of sex and really satisfy women . So then Vuk when are you going to drop the charade and come in the open about being fond of back door deliveries ?

[Fragony]

@luigi

I can think of no society where a bond such as marriage was between same sexes, even in ancient (wth??) Greece it was an tolerated vice despite being very publicly acceptable.

[Andres]

Ok then:

1) Couple A consists of two people of the opposite sex; couple B consists of two people of the same sex.
2) Couple A is allowed to marry
3) Couple B is not allowed to marry.
4) Couple A and B are treated differently aka there is unequal treatment.

To those opposed to gay marriage: what is your justification for this unequal treatment?

[Vuk]

I must deem this Christian-centred.

The word 'marriage' is older than Catholicism. It is older than the church. It is older than Moses. It is older than the Israelites. The word 'marriage' is ancient, and common throughout the Indo-European linguistic world.
Christianity claims an exclusive right to a word that predates the church by millenia.


The act of marriage predates the church by countless generations too, nobody is entirely sure how old it is. Very certain is that Europeans have been wed to one another for millenia before the birth of Christ.


The church is a modern invention. A totalitarian institution that shamelessly claims monopolies on much older, truly ancient institutions, such as marriage, harvest feasts, burials.

It is not gays who want to take traditional marriage away from Christians. It is on the contrary, Christians who seek to take the ancient tradition of marriage away from any and all non-Christians. :no:

First of all, your history is quite off. Second of all, Christians are not trying to have a monopoly on 'marriage' in the sense of pagans, but simply to preserve the meaning that the word has acquired in recent centuries. So what is the urgent need to go back to the neolithic age? Many other words have changed in meaning over the centuries through PEACEFUL evolution, and no one is saying "The Jurassic meaning of this word may be different! We need it changed!" The meaning of words change throughout history either by general consensus when the people start using it for something different, or when dictators or powerful organizations try to change it for their gain. While it is true that the Catholic church was responsible for extending its control over unwilling people, the definition of marriage was not forcibly changed by Christians, but came to refer exclusively to God's union through centuries of use with the absence of pagan marriages. It was not 'stealing' the word, because the word ceased to be used for all other purposes, so no one had a claim on it. Marriage simply means 'bond' anyway, so cannot the state define such unions as unions or bonds? They are synonyms of the original meaning of marriage. Marriage did not come to refer to what it refers to today by taking the word away from other people who used it for another purpose. If you go trying to change the meaning now, you are going to forcibly change the word that has a long established, common usage among several agreeing organizations and 100s of 1000s of people. Why? It is, as I said, like me trying to claim the word Rabbi. The roots of the word Rabbi have a linguistic history longer than the roots of the word marriage, and were used all throughout the Middle East and the Fertile Crescent. It simply means revered one, or lord. Why is it then that they should have a legal monopoly on it? All throughout history you have had non-religious leaders called Rabbi (or some form of the word), and then those totalitarian childeating Jews (half-brothers to the darker and more disturbed Christians) come along and try to claim it! Those evil Jews are trying to take my reveredness away! Oy vey! I will never truely be accepted or treated equally until I and humanity reclaim that word from evil religion!
I don't know what you bad is with religion, or if it is maybe just Christians you hate, but I think you need to put things in perspective a bit.

EDIT: And just wanted to put a note in to any Jews who see my Oy vey comment and get the wrong idea. I am not making fun of Jews. I am part Jewish myself, and my religious views are very much influenced by Judiasm (to the point where I may say that I am 'half-Jew' in a sense). :P I was just trying to play on the irony and be funny.

[Louis VI the Fat]

First of all, your history is quite off.

I don't know what you bad is with religion, or if it is maybe just Christians you hate, but I think you need to put things in perspective a bit.Three remarks:

My history is quite correct.

I do not in the slightest bit wish to take away Christian marriage from Christians. I only resist Christians taking away non-Christian marriage from non-Christians.

My beef is not with Christians. It isn't with religion either. My beef is with discrimination.

[Fragony]

Ok then:

1) Couple A consists of two people of the opposite sex; couple B consists of two people of the same sex.
2) Couple A is allowed to marry
3) Couple B is not allowed to marry.
4) Couple A and B are treated differently aka there is unequal treatment.

To those opposed to gay marriage: what is your justification for this unequal treatment?

I am neutral on the subject, I am not against it, and I am not for it, all fine with me what's it to me. But I don't understand why they want it.

[Vuk]

Thats what Haggard used to shout , christians are viriile have lots of sex and really satisfy women . So then Vuk when are you going to drop the charade and come in the open about being fond of back door deliveries ?
Nah baby, I couldn't do that without exposing you. I wouldn't cause you the embarrasment. ~;) Who knows, in this thread you may be lynched...or worse, we may not be allowed to marry!


Ok then:

1) Couple A consists of two people of the opposite sex; couple B consists of two people of the same sex.
2) Couple A is allowed to marry
3) Couple B is not allowed to marry.
4) Couple A and B are treated differently aka there is unequal treatment.

To those opposed to gay marriage: what is your justification for this unequal treatment?

1) Person A considers himself a leader.
2) Person B considers himself a leader.
3) Person A is legally classified as a Rabbi and Person B is not.
4) Person A and Person B have the exact drrned same rights, but person A is using a word that has come to be associated with his religion and Person B is using the non-religious term.

Get my point? Couple A and Couple B have the same rights. Couple A uses a religious term to define their union if they want to (as meets criteria for both the legal and religious union), and Couple B use the legal word bond. Same rights, treated equally. Couple A may choose to identify with religon or not. Either way, they are gonna have the exact same rights and treated equally with Couple B.
All that matters as far as treatment goes is the legal definition, and if the legal definition is neutral (union, bond, etc) or if there is marriage and union and in every way but the name marriage=union then they will be treated equally and are equal. What is the obsession with highjacking the word? THAT is what I find hard to understand?

[Fragony]

lol Vuk if we agreed more we would have to get married

[Andres]

That's not really an answer to my question now, is it?

The question was about the justification for the unequal treatment that currently exists and adressed to those opposed to gay marriage.

I'd like to have a straight answer to my question from those opposed to gay marriage.

If I don't get a (non evasive) answer to the question, then the conclusion is simple: there is no justification.

If there's no justification for the unequal treatment, then the unequal treatment is unjust and must be ended immediately and gays should be allowed to marry.

It's pretty simple and straightforward.

[Vuk]

Three remarks:

My history is quite correct.

I do not in the slightest bit wish to take away Christian marriage from Christians. I only resist Christians taking away non-Christian marriage from non-Christians.

My beef is not with Christians. It isn't with religion either. My beef is with discrimination.

You history is correct? Then in what culture was the word marriage used to describe marriage between the same sex? As far as I know, it was ALWAYS used to refer to marriage between the opposite sexes.

By redefining the word marriage, you are taking away Christian marriage, because the word marraige will no longer refer to the Holy bond that God sanctified. Then when people read their Bibles, they will have start to believe that God said something He didn't -... Hey! I found out whey they want the word so badly!


My beef is not with Christians. It isn't with religion either.


I must deem this Christian-centred.



A totalitarian institution that shamelessly claims monopolies on much older, truly ancient institutions, such as marriage, harvest feasts, burials.


If you say so... :no:

[Louis VI the Fat]

@luigi

I can think of no society where a bond such as marriage was between same sexes, even in ancient (wth??) Greece it was an tolerated vice despite being very publicly acceptable.Marriage predates Christianity. What Christians consider an ancient, inherently Christian tradition is in fact much older.

Not only that. This Christian 'tradition' has changed throughout the centuries, and throughout different places. Do not mistake a few centuries-old, northwest European practise for a timeless intitution.


What follows is from an eleventh-century Greek manuscript labeled Grottaferrata G.B.), and I have inserted some of the significant original Greek words in transcription.

Office for Same-Sex Union
[Akolouthia eis adelphopoiesin]

I.

The priest shall place the holy Gospel on the Gospel stand and they that are to be joined together place their right hands on it, holding lighted candles in their left hands. Then shall the priest cense them and say the following:

II.

In peace we beseech Thee, O Lord.

For heavenly peace, we beseech Thee, O Lord.

For the peace of the entire world, we beseech Thee, O Lord.

For this holy place, we beseech Thee, O Lord.

That these thy servants, N. and N., be sanctified with thy spiritual benediction, we beseech Thee, O Lord.

That their love [agape] abide without offense or scandal all the days of their lives, we beseech Thee, O Lord.

That they be granted all things needed for salvation and godly enjoyment of life everlasting, we beseech Thee, O Lord.

That the Lord God grant unto them unashamed faithfulness [pistis] and sincere love [agape anhypokritos], we beseech Thee, O Lord. . . .

Have mercy on us, O God.

"Lord, have mercy" shall be said three times.

III.

The priest shall say:

Forasmuch as Thou, O Lord and Ruler, art merciful and loving, who didst establish humankind after thine image and likeness, who didst deem it meet that thy holy apostles Philip and Bartholomew be united, bound one unto the other not by nature but by faith and the spirit. As Thou didst find thy holy martyrs Serge and Bacchus worthy to be united together [adelphoi genesthai], bless also these thy servants, N. and N., joined together not by the bond of nature but by faith and in the mode of the spirit [ou desmoumenous desmi physeis alla pisteis kai pneumatikos tropi], granting unto them peace [eirene] and love [agape] and oneness of mind. Cleanse from their hearts every stain and impurity and vouchsafe unto them to love one another [to agapan allelous] without hatred and without scandal all the days of their lives, with the aid of the Mother of God and all thy saints, forasmuch as all glory is thine.

IV.
Another Prayer for Same-Sex Union

O Lord Our God, who didst grant unto us all those things necessary for salvation and didst bid us to love one another and to forgive each other our failings, bless and consecrate, kind Lord and lover of good, these thy servants who love each other with a love of the spirit [tous pneumatike agape heautous agapesantas] and have come into this thy holy church to be blessed and consecrated. Grant unto them unashamed fidelity [pistis] and sincere love [agape anhypokritos], and as Thou didst vouchsafe unto thy holy disciples and apostles thy peace and love, bestow them also on these, O Christ our God, affording to them all those things needed for salvation and life eternal. For Thou art the light and the truth and thine is the glory.

V.

Then shall they kiss the holy Gospel and the priest and one another, and conclude.

It is this ceremonial, and blessings like these, that Boswell claims to be part of a lost, or deliberately suppressed, tradition of church-legitimized same-sex marriages between men.



Homosexuality in ancient Greece, as described by the Towering Giant of Western philosophy, Plato. For Plato, as was the custom in Greece, male homosexuality was the most manly, most revered form of love:

The Speech of Aristophanes
PLATO

From the Symposium, by Plato, translated by Alexander Nehamas and Paul Woodruff, 1989

In a dialogue on the meaning of love, Plato writes a masterpiece for his sometime sparring partner, the playwright Aristophanes, to explain the mystery of our desire for one other person. This passage follows Aristophanes's myth about the origins of human beings. In the beginning, Aristophanes conjectures, humans were essentially two people combined, each with two heads, four feet and four arms. There were three sexes: those with two male halves, those with two female halves, and those with one of each (the "androgynous" sort). At one point, however, Zeus, to punish humans for misbehaving, cut each human in two. Since then, each half wanders the earth in search of its lost other half, creating homosexual men, lesbians, and heterosexuals. Notice how same-sex love is put on the same plane as opposite-sex love, but also see how marriage is not identified with it.

Each of us, then, is a "matching half" of a human whole, because each was sliced like a flatfish, two out of one, and each of us is always seeking the half that matches him. That's why a man who is split from the double sort (which used to be called "androgynous") runs after women. Many lecherous men have come from this class, and so do the lecherous women who run after men. Women who are split from a woman, however, pay no attention at all to men; they are oriented more towards women, and lesbians come from this class. People who are split from a male are male-oriented. While they are boys, because they are chips off the male block, they love men and enjoy lying with men and being embraced by men; those are the best of boys and lads, because they are the most manly in their nature. Of course, some say such boys are shameless, but they're lying. It's not because they have no shame that such boys do this, you see, but because they are bold and brave and masculine, and they tend to cherish what is like themselves. Do you want me to prove it? Look, these are the only kind of boys who grow up to be politicians. When they're grown men, they are lovers of young men, and they naturally pay no attention to marriage or to making babies, except insofar as they are required by local custom. They, however, are quite satisfied to live their lives with one another unmarried. In every way, then, this sort of man grows up as a lover of young men and a lover of Love, always rejoicing in his own kind.

And so, when a person meets the half that is his very own, whatever his orientation, whether it's to young men or not, then something wonderful happens: the two are struck from their senses by love, by a sense of belonging to one another, and by desire, and they don't want to be separated from one another, not even for a moment.

These are the people who finish out their lives together and still cannot say what it is they want from one another. No one would think it is the intimacy of sex-that mere sex is the reason each lover takes so great and deep a joy in being with the other. It's obvious that the soul of every lover longs for something else; his soul cannot say what it is, but like an oracle it has a sense of what it wants, and like an oracle it hides behind a riddle. Suppose two lovers are lying together and Hephaestus stands over them with his mending tools, asking, "What is it you human beings really want from each other?" And suppose they're perplexed, and he asks them again: "Is this your heart's desire, then-for the two of you to become parts of the same whole, as near as can be, and never to separate, day or night? Because if that's your desire, I'd like to weld you together and join you into something that is naturally whole, so that the two of you are made into one. Then the two of you would share one life, as long as you lived, because you would be one being, and by the same token, when you died, you would be one and not two in Hades, having died a single death. Look at your love, and see if this is what you desire: wouldn't this be all the good fortune you could want?"

Surely you can see that no one who received such an offer would turn it down; no one would find anything else that he wanted. . . .

[Vuk]

That's not really an answer to my question now, is it?

The question was about the justification for the unequal treatment that currently exists and adressed to those opposed to gay marriage.

I'd like to have a straight answer to my question from those opposed to gay marriage.

If I don't get a (non evasive) answer to the question, then the conclusion is simple: there is no justification.

If there's no justification for the unequal treatment, then the unequal treatment is unjust and must be ended immediately and gays should be allowed to marry.

It's pretty simple and straightforward.

I have answered your question before and will do so again in a very straightforward way. (get that Tribesy?)
There is no justification for it and they should be afforded the same rights under law. I have said this, and every Christian I have talked to who opposes gay marriage as well as politicians who do have said this. The argument isn't over them getting equal rights, it is about the word. That is why I said my solution would be to abolish the legal definition of marriage and rename the institution legal union/legal bond. It is church in the state where it shouldn't be anyway. Do this, and they will be legally equal, and the name of their legal bond will be the same for those who somehow think it makes a difference.

[Fragony]

Marriage predates Christianity. What Christians consider an ancient, inherently Christian tradition is in fact much older.

Not only that. This Christian 'tradition' has changed throughout the centuries, and throughout different places. Do not mistake a few centuries-old, northwest European practise for a timeless intitution.





Homosexuality in ancient Greece, as described by the Towering Giant of Western philosophy, Plato. For Plato, as was the custom in Greece, male homosexuality was the most manly, most revered form of love:

The Speech of Aristophanes
PLATO

From the Symposium, by Plato, translated by Alexander Nehamas and Paul Woodruff, 1989


I am not completely unknowlegdable about all that crap, but, even in Greece marriage was between a man and a woman. You seem to be so very fond of institutionalised things, why do you think the concept of marriage in every culture is between a man and a woman. Baby's, reproduction.

[Andres]

I asked a very simple question:


Ok then:

1) Couple A consists of two people of the opposite sex; couple B consists of two people of the same sex.
2) Couple A is allowed to marry
3) Couple B is not allowed to marry.
4) Couple A and B are treated differently aka there is unequal treatment.

To those opposed to gay marriage: what is your justification for this unequal treatment?

I only see some interesting posts about the history of the word "marriage", a bit of semantics, some proposals to replace the word "marriage" by something else, but I do not see any justification for the current discrimination.

Since non discrimination is the rule and there's no justification for this exception on the rule, gays should be allowed to marry.

Unless somebody comes with a serious justification, serious enough to justify unequal treatment.

I'm still waiting.

[Vuk]

Marriage predates Christianity. What Christians consider an ancient, inherently Christian tradition is in fact much older.

Not only that. This Christian 'tradition' has changed throughout the centuries, and throughout different places. Do not mistake a few centuries-old, northwest European practise for a timeless intitution.





Homosexuality in ancient Greece, as described by the Towering Giant of Western philosophy, Plato. For Plato, as was the custom in Greece, male homosexuality was the most manly, most revered form of love:

The Speech of Aristophanes
PLATO

From the Symposium, by Plato, translated by Alexander Nehamas and Paul Woodruff, 1989


2 things, first of all, while male relations in Greece were common, I have never heard of them being referred to as any derivative of the word marriage. They were, as far as I know, NOT marriages, simply unions.
Second of all, as far as church cults practicing marriage in a way other than what the Bible specifies, it is not marriage, because it goes against what the Bible defines as marriage. Many cults had many practices that went completely agains the Bible including human sacrafice. Because they claim it as a legitimate christian institution does not make it so. And again, they were claiming that it WAS legitimate CHRISTIAN marriage. So that hardly helps your point. Such cultic beliefs have consistently been proved false by Bible scholars.

[Vuk]

I asked a very simple question:



I only see some interesting posts about the history of the word "marriage", a bit of semantics, some proposals to replace the word "marriage" by something else, but I do not see any justification for the current discrimination.

Since non discrimination is the rule and there's no justification for this exception on the rule, gays should be allowed to marry.

Unless somebody comes with a serious justification, serious enough to be in proportion with the consequences of the unequal treatment.

I'm still waiting.

You are right that the current discrimination should end, but it should not end by changing the legal definition of marriage! It should end by something that has already been proven to work: legal unions. (Or, even better, as I suggested, getting rid of legal marriage)
We can agree that the current discrimination is wrong Andres, what we do not agree on is making gay marriage legal. There is another option that steps on no one's toes. (in fact, more than one option) And by doing so, we could make the system more constitutional.

EDIT: Actually, if gays were purpusing a more logical and less offensive solution, they would have my whole-hearted support. The solution that many of them are pursuing though, I judge as idiotic and will not support.

[Louis VI the Fat]

You seem to be so very fond of institutionalised things, why do you think the concept of marriage in every culture is between a man and a woman. Same-Sex Couples Creating Households in Old Regime France: The Uses of the Affrèrement.

From the Journal of Modern History (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/517983)


Medieval gay Europeans had more legal rights than modern gay Europeans. Back then, they had three options:
1 - join into a legal union with another man
2 - don't and parade around in fabulous costumes and have mad gay orgies every night
3 - don't and parade around in fabulous costumes within a Catholic Church.

Today, only the last two options are open to gay men.

[Vuk]

Same-Sex Couples Creating Households in Old Regime France: The Uses of the Affrèrement.

From the Journal of Modern History (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/517983)


Medieval gay Europeans had more legal rights than modern gay Europeans. Back then, they had three options:
1 - join into a legal union with another man
2 - don't and parade around in fabulous costumes and have mad gay orgies every night
3 - don't and parade around in fabulous costumes within a Catholic Church.

Today, only the last two options are open to gay men.

This legal union was NOT marriage though, was it? I do not have access to the article now so I cannot read more than a little bit of the introduction, but that is not what I got from it.

[Louis VI the Fat]

This legal union was NOT marriage though, was it? I do not have access to the article now so I cannot read more than a little bit of the introduction, but that is not what I got from it.Indeed it was not a marriage. The affrèrement ('joining as brothers') is closest to what today would be called a 'civil union'.

[Fragony]

Same-Sex Couples Creating Households in Old Regime France: The Uses of the Affrèrement.

From the Journal of Modern History (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/517983)


Medieval gay Europeans had more legal rights than modern gay Europeans. Back then, they had three options:
1 - join into a legal union with another man
2 - don't and parade around in fabulous costumes and have mad gay orgies every night
3 - don't and parade around in fabulous costumes within a Catholic Church.

Today, only the last two options are open to gay men.

Doesn't change anything. Marriage is a concept because marriage makes baby's. No matter how cheerful you are you are still too gay.

[LittleGrizzly]

So marriage was around before Christianity...

Christianity adopted marriage into its framework (as well as a bunch of other religions)

Christianity now has ownership off the word ?

What is this.... a numbers game... i remember some quote about the tyranny of the majority...

These days marriage is shared across plenty of religions, agnostics and atheists... what some dusty old book says on the matter is off no importance, i also remember some silly comments in some religious book about not talking to mensurating women, any members of that religion cn follow such out of date rules if they choose to but they are not allowed to enforce that belief on the rest of us through the state...

[Fixiwee]

Marriage is a concept because marriage makes baby's.
Marrige in the sense of the state is a legal procedure. It implies certain obligations to the married couple to the state, but also implies easier procedures of heritage and better taxes for both.
Marrige is to the state, not to biology. I can make babies without being married.

[Fragony]

Marrige is to the state, not to biology. I can make babies without being married.

Hence my amazement that they want to get married, why.

[Rhyfelwyr]

It seems they just can't keep out of other people's religion (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east/8049761.stm)

I am absoutedly disgusted about this, I never thought I would see the day when such a solid church would consider such things. If this guy gets to keep his position, then I think that I will be forced to leave. Ideally, many in the church will break away to form a new rival Church of Scotland, which I will join. If not, it looks like I'll be joining the local fundamentalist Baptists because I'm not staying in a church that mocks the scripture like this.

[Brenus]

Anyway. nowadays only clergymen and gays wanted o get marriage...:laugh4: (for the French: Mis a part les cures, plus personne ne veut se marier... -Jean Ferrat-)

For the Catholic Church, marriage in one of the holly sacement, confirmed by the Concil of Trente, along side the baptism (followed by the confirmation), confession, the last rites, forget the last one:embarassed:.

[Louis VI the Fat]

it looks like I'll be joining the local fundamentalist Baptists because I'm not staying in a church that mocks the scripture like this. Hmm...I usually refrain from engaging in theological disputes. However, I think that there are a great many Christians out there who think of their religion as one of love, not of bigotry. They worry about their own soul. Might pray for the salvation of others. And will abstain from making final judgements of others - people like themselves, struggling with what's right and what's wrong.

Scripture says not to judge prostitutes, leppars. Not to cast the first stone. Many Christians see their religion in this manner. What is it about homosexuality that you feel one must hate them so much that one can not even be part of a kirk that refuses to ostracise gays? Didn't Jesus himself took pity on prostitutes, the outcasts, the lowest?

I still maintain that hatred of gays is not an inherently Christian duty. What's more, even amongst those Christians who do think homosexuality sinful, many are forgiving, or will leave judgement to a higher authority.
[/theological dispute from internal Christian perspective]

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I have mixed feelings on homosexual clergy (though generally I advocate a don't ask don't tell policy - a Catholic priest shouldn't be having sexual relations with anyone, so it isn't anybody's matter whether he is gay or straight), and as I have stated, I can see both sides of the issue on gay marriage.

However, there is one thing about gay marriage that I can never compromise on. Gay marriage must never be forced on a Church, and if the Catholic Church allows gay marriage voluntarily I will consider leaving.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I know that we all need forgivness, homosexuals are no different. I would be delighted if they would attent our churches as part of the congregation, and seriously listen to sound gospel. I don't care if they are homosexuals, prositutues, heck even murderers - they are always welcome to join the congregation and I would not want them to think otherwise.

The problem is that this fellow who wants to become a minister is denying that there is anything wrong with homosexuality. Yes God is forgiving, but a sign of forgiveness is realising the state of your sin, whether it is due to being homosexual, or just general flaws that we all have.

You may have noticed I am pretty anti-clerical, and so I would not even have a problem with a homosexual being a minister, since ministers are no different from the rest of us - so long as he/she acknowledged that homosexaulity is wrong according to the Bible.

It's the fact they are saying that homosexuality is OK that is annoying me. I know some of us Christians come across as having a "holier than thou" type attitude, but I am not judging this man as lesser than myself, God forgive me if I should ever think such a thing. But that does not mean that I am not aware of sin for what it is, otherwise I could not have realised my own sins. I do not want the Kirk to teach that sinful deeds are in any way godly, and this dispute is threating to cause the biggest single blow to the Kirk since the disruption of 1843.

[Louis VI the Fat]

That is a good post, Rhy.

Your theological beliefs are your own. By their nature they elude me agreeing or disagreeing with them. Maybe I should have done what I usuall do, and refrain from taking an internal theological position. I mostly wanted to point out that some Christians do not think homosexuality a sin. And that many more will leave judgement to God. Likewise, homophobia is not a Christian invention. Many non-Christians are bigots, unmitigated too by any Christian concepts of forgiveness or the passing on of judgement. (Yes, I was standing up for Christians. ;-) )

From an external, non-theological perspective, I think that an ideology that names homosexuality 'sinful', ie, inferior, is disgraceful and bigoted. (Yes, attacking Christianity here again)

Earlier in this thread, I named provincialism as the main culprit behind homophobia.

[Scurvy]

Yes God is forgiving, but a sign of forgiveness is realising the state of your sin, whether it is due to being homosexual, or just general flaws that we all have.

Not sure I get this, its all very well recognising your own sinful behaviour, but not then attempting to change that behaviour is surely worse than not recognising it at all?




From an external, non-theological perspective, I think that an ideology that names homosexuality 'sinful', ie, inferior, is disgraceful and bigoted.

my thoughts exactly...

:2thumbsup:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Louis, your quote from the "Symposium" is badly taken, Socrates advocated non-sexual love as the ultimate form in the dialogue and resisted the homosexual advances of Alcibidies. While Plato may himself have been a homosexual, and was certainly enamoured of Socrates; "Platonic love" is explicitiely non-sexual.

As far as Greek texts, you will have to cite a Patriarch from before 300 AD or similar aurthority if you wish to argue for "legitimate" homosexuality in Christianity. Nicaea banned homosexuality, I believe. Certainly John's Gospel was edited before then in order to remove an ambidious massage used by Greeks to argue for homosexuality. Personally I think the editing was unnecessary, the passage was vety tame.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

For the Catholic Church, marriage in one of the holly sacement, confirmed by the Concil of Trente, along side the baptism (followed by the confirmation), confession, the last rites, forget the last one:embarassed:.

Baptism (once), Communion, Reconciliation, Confirmation (once), Matrimony, Holy Orders, & Annointing of the Sick.

Most Priests and Catholics only receive 6 of these sacraments. Only members of the deaconate typically receive all 7.

[Samurai Waki]

I have mixed feelings on homosexual clergy (though generally I advocate a don't ask don't tell policy - a Catholic priest shouldn't be having sexual relations with anyone.

I wholeheartedly disagree. Celibacy was a poor decision made by a string of Popes who were more concerned about money, taxation, and inheritance, than allowing the clergy to properly conduct religious services. 'twas a different time then, and it should be considered null and void by today's standards. Alas, it takes a long time for the Catholic Church to change it's mind, considering Galileo was only recently relieved of his excommunication. Besides exclusivity and spirituality has never jived with me.

[Fragony]

Marriage is a unity for reproduction in all cultures, always been like that whatever the religion. There can be no such unity between same sexes, they should be instinctively aware of that, they simply can't do that. There are some things you can't have no matter how much you want it. Pas possible, shouldn't want it.

[Fixiwee]

Marriage is a unity for reproduction in all cultures, always been like that whatever the religion. There can be no such unity between same sexes, they should be instinctively aware of that, they simply can't do that. There are some things you can't have no matter how much you want it. Pas possible, shouldn't want it.
So 5 states in the US have already passed legal gay marriage. And gay people will come together, marry and have a life together. It's a symbol of love and dedication, that you are willing to commit to another person, even if he is of the same sex.
You are on the other hand just ignorant to the fact that marriage is not just a unity for reproduction. You are just stating that this symbol is for the heterosexuals. And you know people can go crazy when you take away those kind of symbols.

I say let's try to be a bit more tollerant and accept certain weird facts that sometimes people love someone of the same sex. So maybe marriage is a unity of love. So why not let them marry. The world will not explode, there will be enough heterosexual babies around to prevent the human race to become extinct.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I wholeheartedly disagree. Celibacy was a poor decision made by a string of Popes who were more concerned about money, taxation, and inheritance, than allowing the clergy to properly conduct religious services. 'twas a different time then, and it should be considered null and void by today's standards. Alas, it takes a long time for the Catholic Church to change it's mind, considering Galileo was only recently relieved of his excommunication. Besides exclusivity and spirituality has never jived with me.

Two things:

1. The celibacy of the clergy was a way to deal with the endemic corruption of Church benifices, and should be seen in that light.

2. Loving God "with your whole heart" means loving him first, before all others. This raises the question of whether a priest, who should definately love God with his whole heart, should marry anyway. Your wife would always come second to your God. One wonders if that makes for a happy marriage, unless she feels the same way.

Though, it must be said, such a union, where both love God first and each other second, would seem to litterally conform to the definition of "Holy Matrimony", because the marriage itself would be an active act of worship.

[Fragony]

So 5 states in the US have already passed legal gay marriage. And gay people will come together, marry and have a life together. It's a symbol of love and dedication, that you are willing to commit to another person, even if he is of the same sex.
You are on the other hand just ignorant to the fact that marriage is not just a unity for reproduction. You are just stating that this symbol is for the heterosexuals. And you know people can go crazy when you take away those kind of symbols.

I say let's try to be a bit more tollerant and accept certain weird facts that sometimes people love someone of the same sex. So maybe marriage is a unity of love. So why not let them marry. The world will not explode, there will be enough heterosexual babies around to prevent the human race to become extinct.

What is the idea behind marriage, 2 people and a future. No future for gays. Pretend all you want you know it isn't the real thing.

[LittleGrizzly]

What is the idea behind marriage, 2 people and a future. No future for gays.

Someone needs to tell the infertile that thier marriages have no future either... why the hell do they get married then ?

Plus with adoption and all new funky sciences gay people can have thier own childrenor of course they could adopt, or regardless of that they could marry and enjoy thier lives together as many married couples do without children...

[Fragony]

[
Plus with adoption and all new funky sciences gay people can have thier own childrenor of course they could adopt,.

And that doesn't sound absolutely twisted in any way

[Seamus Fermanagh]

And that doesn't sound absolutely twisted in any way

Nope. Grizz' could have given a bit more time to the spelling/grammar to make it read better, but I had no trouble understanding his point.

Should we be able to create a child by splicing the genetic material of two men together in some kind of pseudo-ova, using in vitro fertilization, and then implanting the resultant blastos in a (appropriately compensated and voluntary) host mother, what would be less unnatural about that than, say, using focused gamma radiation to destroy brain tumors insinde a living brain?

[Fragony]

Nope. Grizz' could have given a bit more time to the spelling/grammar to make it read better, but I had no trouble understanding his point.

Should we be able to create a child by splicing the genetic material of two men together in some kind of pseudo-ova, using in vitro fertilization, and then implanting the resultant blastos in a (appropriately compensated and voluntary) host mother, what would be less unnatural about that than, say, using focused gamma radiation to destroy brain tumors insinde a living brain?

Can I be me? It isn't really gay if it's your clone.

[Fixiwee]

What is the idea behind marriage, 2 people and a future. No future for gays. Pretend all you want you know it isn't the real thing.
To say that my statement is pretentious is prepostreous. Who says that the idea behind marriage is having children? You?
Like I said befor. I don't need marriage to have a future and children. I do need love for to marry a women.
So if gay people love each other, why not let them have their marriage and we can all just get a long peacefully and with dignity and respect.

Equal rights for everyone please, not just for you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMHisTmIfyM

[Fragony]

To say that my statement is pretentious is prepostreous. Who says that the idea behind marriage is having children? You?
Like I said befor. I don't need marriage to have a future and children. I do need love for to marry a women.
So if gay people love each other, why not let them have their marriage and we can all just get a long peacefully and with dignity and respect.

Equal rights for everyone please, not just for you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMHisTmIfyM

They can have it, but I don't understand why they want it. It's never going to be a real marriage it will always be a gay marriage, enjoy.

[Fixiwee]

They can have it, but I don't understand why they want it. It's never going to be a real marriage it will always be a gay marriage, enjoy.
Fair enough.
I personally don't understand how one can be homosexual since I am straight as the national borders in Africa. But I respect their sexuallity and the need to be treated equal as a symbol of love and passion.

[Andres]

Marriage is a unity for reproduction in all cultures, always been like that whatever the religion.

Oh, what a nice and sensitive statement, Fragony.

So a straight couple that can't have children of their own should not marry/should divorce?

[Fragony]

So a straight couple that can't have children of their own should not marry/should divorce?

Those are few out of many, so are homosexuals, why consider a "should".

[Andres]

Those are few out of many, so are homosexuals, why consider a "should".

Ehm, I'm not sure if I understand your cryptic post correct.

Are you saying infertile couples must not be allowed to marry?

[Fragony]

Are you saying infertile couples must not be allowed to marry?

I really have no idea why this is an argument, just because they are an exception?

[Andres]

I really have no idea why this is an argument, just because they are an exception?

Well, you say marriage is for reproduction. So, by that same logic, infertile straight couples must not be allowed to marry either.

Or do you think straight infertile couples should be allowed to marry?

If so, then why should they be allowed to marry and gays not, since both can't have children.

[Fragony]

Well, you say marriage is for reproduction. So, by that same logic, infertile straight couples must not be allowed to marry either.

Or do you think straight infertile couples should be allowed to marry?

If so, then why should they be allowed to marry and gays not, since both can't have children.

Sure, so do gays. They can marry their pc if they want to. They don't need my aproval do they.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Cool, Fred Phelps and the team are coming over to Scotland for the meeting of our Kirk's General Assembly. I think I should go to get his autograph, just for the lulz.

In any case, hopefully my minister will give some insight into the matter tomorrow, I know some of the congregation will not be pleased with what is being proposed.

[seireikhaan]

I have just a few comments on this whole marriage thing-a-ma-bobber.

1) Marriage isn't all that sacred. If it was a sacred act, then half of american marriages wouldn't end in a divorce. That crosses all spectrums of religion and ethnicity. If people were so concerned about marriage's sanctity, they should be doing more about the divorce issue leaving hundreds of thousands(millions? :shrug:) of kids growing up in environments where their otherwise loving parents treat them as a piece of property while hurling swear words at their counterpart. :thumbsdown: Go try and fix that first, then complain about the gays ruining marriage.

2) Why do people care so much theologically? Its not as though Judaism created the idea. Its a universal concept designed to promote harmony, safe childbirth, and minimize inbreeding. Pagan Romans did. Chinse have done it. Native Americans have done it. Indians have done it. Africans have done it. Trobriand Islanders have done. Etc....And....? Yes, Christianity adopted it. Of course it did, its a pretty darned good thing for society. That said, its not like Jesus ever married. As far as we can tell Biblically, Jesus didn't have a whole lot to say about the matter, and apparently didn't care for creating a demi-deity while on earth. Ya, there's old testament stuff on homosexuality being a bestial act and all that, but really, come on. You gotta try harder than that. There's all sorts of old testament stuff that a lot of Jews today don't even follow(like stoning women for touching a guys crotch during a dispute). Heck, how many christians follow the dietary laws, or the other 500 some odd laws that were laid down? Its a weak, insincere argument coming from mostly theological hypocrites.

3) How does it actually affect people? Doesn't affect me if gays start gettting married in the courthouse. Lots of people do it. Last I checked, I was afflicted with boils the last time a straight couple was allowed to marry. My state legalized gay marriage a bit ago, and guess what? STILL NO BOILS! :2thumbsup: If they are going to hell, then guess what? Their decision, between them and god, and I frankly can't see how I'm going to do a whole lot about it. If God does exist, then he'll pass judgement on them, not me. I just don't see how anyone can be getting themselves so worked up over other people's private lives.

[rasoforos]

Marriage is a unity for reproduction in all cultures, always been like that whatever the religion.

Another Fragonyism

So many times you have equated your own personal opinion with 'all cultures' 'always' 'the whole world' etc etc... :yes:

Your statement is obviously not thought through.

Monotheism is too dogmatic and too recent to patronize people over what they believe or not. The homosexual couple are not getting married in churches or mosques or synagogues (no-one forces priests imams or rabbis to perform such marriages) and that is the end of the story really.

[HoreTore]

Marriage is a unity for reproduction in all cultures, always been like that whatever the religion.

Irrelevant. We change everything to better suit the way we want to live our lives now. Everything changes, including marriage. If we think the definition of marriage is insufficient for what we want it to represent in this age, we simply change it.

Today, we want marriage to represent a close and strong bond between two people who love each other. So we've changed the meaning of marriage to represent that.

[Vuk]

Irrelevant. We change everything to better suit the way we want to live our lives now. Everything changes, including marriage. If we think the definition of marriage is insufficient for what we want it to represent in this age, we simply change it.

Today, we want marriage to represent a close and strong bond between two people who love each other. So we've changed the meaning of marriage to represent that.

ooo, let's change the definition of everything while we are at it! After all, words have no real meaning and can be changed on a whim! Finally! My dream of being a legal Rabbi will be fufilled! :daisy: Jews if they do not like it, they have no rights to descriminating against us and excluding us from the legal Rabbi status. In fact, no one has a right to exclude me from being President! I want to be President of the United States, NOW! If you do not like it, to bad! You are just trying to oppress me!

[Tribesman]

~:rolleyes:Someone doesn't know what a Rabbi is .

[Meneldil]

ooo, let's change the definition of everything while we are at it! After all, words have no real meaning and can be changed on a whim! Finally! My dream of being a legal Rabbi will be fufilled! :daisy: Jews if they do not like it, they have no rights to descriminating against us and excluding us from the legal Rabbi status. In fact, no one has a right to exclude me from being President! I want to be President of the United States, NOW! If you do not like it, to bad! You are just trying to oppress me!

Given that most europeans and north-american don't give a damn about religion and christianity, why should marriage keep its (relatively recent, in any case) christian meaning ?

[Samurai Waki]

Well, I wouldn't say most North Americans, considering that a very healthy percentage of Americans are a breath away from Fundamentalism. Of course, many aren't either.

[HoreTore]

ooo, let's change the definition of everything while we are at it! After all, words have no real meaning and can be changed on a whim! Finally! My dream of being a legal Rabbi will be fufilled! :daisy: Jews if they do not like it, they have no rights to descriminating against us and excluding us from the legal Rabbi status. In fact, no one has a right to exclude me from being President! I want to be President of the United States, NOW! If you do not like it, to bad! You are just trying to oppress me!

If we as a society wants to change the meaning of the word Rabbi, then of course we will do that.

As for your President example, well, we've already given that word several meanings. As for President of the United States, simply start a company called The United States, and voila, you can be the President of the United States :yes:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

As for your President example, well, we've already given that word several meanings. As for President of the United States, simply start a company called The United States, and voila, you can be the President of the United States :yes:

I'm sure that violates some sort of copyright law.

[Fragony]

Another Fragonyism

So many times you have equated your own personal opinion with 'all cultures' 'always' 'the whole world' etc etc... :yes:

Your statement is obviously not thought through.

Monotheism is too dogmatic and too recent to patronize people over what they believe or not. The homosexual couple are not getting married in churches or mosques or synagogues (no-one forces priests imams or rabbis to perform such marriages) and that is the end of the story really.

Don't care about the religious aspect. They can call it a marriage all they want but it ain't the real thing, that is where the bloodline ends. Never going to be more then a dress-up party, if it is what it is at least be honest about it, it's as much of a marriage as me marrying my boat.

[Samurai Waki]

Well if you look at it from... well, nobody else but your perspective maybe, Frag then that is the way it must be. But it would still be equal marriage according to law, and to the two people who are married it would be something much deeper, a binding of souls perhaps? Marriage isn't always, or even usually just a physical interaction between two people.

[Fragony]

Well if you look at it from... well, nobody else but your perspective maybe, Frag then that is the way it must be. But it would still be equal marriage according to law, and to the two people who are married it would be something much deeper, a binding of souls perhaps? Marriage isn't always, or even usually just a physical interaction between two people.

If it's the exact same thing we would just call it marriage, but we call it gay marriage, even the people who absolutely adore the idea give it a different qualification, so do I. State can't make a difference, I can.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Marriage is a unity for reproduction Reproduction is not mere procreation. We are not spawning fish. We are highly developed mammals. Reproduction takes years of devotion to a child by adults.

Gay marriage increases the stability of the environment that kids need to grow up in. Hence, gay marriage is all about making human reproduction possible. :yes:

[Rhyfelwyr]

Gay marriage increases the stability of the environment that kids need to grow up in. Hence, gay marriage is all about making human reproduction possible. :yes:

It's one thing for gay people to be able to do what they want in their own homes but to bring children into the equation just so they can have equal rights is competely unfair on the child.

[rasoforos]

It's one thing for gay people to be able to do what they want in their own homes but to bring children into the equation just so they can have equal rights is competely unfair on the child.

Who are we to judge who is to bring children to the world or not?

Take a look on how many well meaning educated people were leading sterilisation programs in the past century (no it wasn't only the Nazis). Do not even think of using this as an argument.

For example for an atheist like me, religious people flooding a toddler's mind with propaganda and superstitions is atrocious. I sometimes feel that is shouldn't be allowed. But I know better than to judge...

It does not really matter if a child has a mom and a dad, or just one parent or parents of the same sex. I have seen enough heterosexual parents literaly destroy their children and leading them to a life of problems, to know better. I would prefer two dads than two :daisy: for parents any day (not that it means that my parents were not fine), at least I d have a sense of fashion and style which I unfortunately lack.

[Askthepizzaguy]

It's one thing for people of different races to be able to do what they want in their own homes but to bring children into the equation just so they can have equal rights is completely unfair on the child.

Don't you realize how confusing it is for a child to have bi-racial parents? Daddy's white, Mommy is black... all the kids at school make fun of the fact that the child isn't really white, isn't really black and call the child offensive names. Well it's just a shame and perhaps it is irresponsible for white and black people to have children together, but it's perfectly acceptable for Irish and Italian people to have children together, or Swedish and Spanish people to have children together. I draw the line at Asians and Caucasians, though. That's too different.

:stars:

Are you saying it's not difficult to be the child of that family with 18 kids? Surely that's normal enough. Heck, religion even encourages it. Or how about being a child of those parents who fight all the time? That's perfectly natural. As long as the parents are male and female, we're all set. And if Daddy comes home drunk and passes out on the couch, that's still better than if he were one of those icky gays, because everyone knows gay is wrong and gays don't love their children like people do. And they are godless sinners, it says so in the Bible... somewhere in Leviticus along with the bit about the shellfish and not sleeping with your cousins.

Ooops we had better get on the phone and call some of our friends from (insert stereotypical "redneck" state here) because apparently they didn't get the memo about that even though they go to church all the time. And they used the argument that it was no one else's business, too. How ironic.

[Rhyfelwyr]

So you don't think parents should teach their children anything. My dad said to me when I was about 7 or 8 that God didn't exist, rather blunt. Should he have been allowed to do this?

Anyway, just because heterosexual parents can be bad doesn't mean having two same-sex parents will be good for a child. If it's bad, the state can step in.

I remember watching a documentary recently on some couples trying to get children to adopt, and the process of being accepted as suitable parents is absolutedly brutal. If there's an issue with too many children being raised by the state, then maybe they need to make the rules a bit less tight, if they did there would be plenty of heterosexual couples which I think most people would accept are better for a child.

[Andres]

It's one thing for gay people to be able to do what they want in their own homes but to bring children into the equation just so they can have equal rights is competely unfair on the child.

Why would it be wrong to have a child raised by two gay people? Please, enlighten me.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Why would it be wrong to have a child raised by two gay people? Please, enlighten me.

Being raised by a heterosexual couple has been the standard evolutionary/God given way for the whole of human history. If you think this biological design is no longer relevant, you have to prove it, and why the alternative is acceptable.

[Samurai Waki]

I had a friend who was raised by Gay Parents, straight as an arrow (He's getting married in a few months... to a female), and smart as a whip. He recently got his doctorate from Harvard. He attributes most of his successes to how much his (Dads) stressed the importance that they always paid attention to him, and nurtured his mind way beyond the call of duty.

[Andres]

Being raised by a heterosexual couple has been the standard evolutionary/God given way for the whole of human history. If you think this biological design is no longer relevant, you have to prove it, and why the alternative is acceptable.



Adoption is organised by law, not by relgion or biology.

Not allowing gays to adopt a child together is unequal treatment, since straight couples are allowed to adopt. As I said earlier in this thread, unequal treatment needs to be justified.

What is your justification for the unequal treatment?

Gays can love children. Gays can change diapers. Gays can work and provide for their family. Gays can read their children stories. Gays can visit the zoo with their children. Gays can raise and educate children, just like any other person. Gays are just like you and me. I don't see a reason or justification for the unequal treatment.

Enlighten me.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Adoption is organised by law, not by relgion or biology.

Not allowing gays to adopt a child together is unequal treatment, since straight couples are allowed to adopt. As I said earlier in this thread, unequal treatment needs to be justified.

What is your justification for the unequal treatment?

Gays can love children. Gays can change diapers. Gays can work and provide for their family. Gays can read their children stories. Gays can visit the zoo with their children. Gays can raise and educate children, just like any other person. Gays are just like you and me. I don't see a reason or justification for the unequal treatment.

Enlighten me.

They are unequal because nature didn't make them equal. We can give them human rights and all, but we can't pretend they have the same biological function as everyone else, when they clearly don't. If you want children to be raised in anything besides a natural family, you have to justify it. This isn't an issue of having the right to your private life, because now there's other people being brought into the equation. You have to state your case if you think it's fair on them.

[HoreTore]

It's one thing for people of different races to be able to do what they want in their own homes but to bring children into the equation just so they can have equal rights is completely unfair on the child.

Don't you realize how confusing it is for a child to have bi-racial parents? Daddy's white, Mommy is black... all the kids at school make fun of the fact that the child isn't really white, isn't really black and call the child offensive names. Well it's just a shame and perhaps it is irresponsible for white and black people to have children together, but it's perfectly acceptable for Irish and Italian people to have children together, or Swedish and Spanish people to have children together. I draw the line at Asians and Caucasians, though. That's too different.

:stars:

Are you saying it's not difficult to be the child of that family with 18 kids? Surely that's normal enough. Heck, religion even encourages it. Or how about being a child of those parents who fight all the time? That's perfectly natural. As long as the parents are male and female, we're all set. And if Daddy comes home drunk and passes out on the couch, that's still better than if he were one of those icky gays, because everyone knows gay is wrong and gays don't love their children like people do. And they are godless sinners, it says so in the Bible... somewhere in Leviticus along with the bit about the shellfish and not sleeping with your cousins.

Ooops we had better get on the phone and call some of our friends from (insert stereotypical "redneck" state here) because apparently they didn't get the memo about that even though they go to church all the time. And they used the argument that it was no one else's business, too. How ironic.

Post of the month.


Being raised by a heterosexual couple has been the standard evolutionary/God given way for the whole of human history. If you think this biological design is no longer relevant, you have to prove it, and why the alternative is acceptable.

Irrelevant, since gays are perfectly capable of making their own babies, all it takes is one sloppy one night stand and a needle to puncture the condom.

Your choice is simply between making life comfortable for the children who are being raised in gay families, and making life worse for them.

Get rid of the delusion that you can stop people from breeding.

[Vuk]

Are you saying it's not difficult to be the child of that family with 18 kids? Surely that's normal enough. Heck, religion even encourages it. Or how about being a child of those parents who fight all the time? That's perfectly natural. As long as the parents are male and female, we're all set. And if Daddy comes home drunk and passes out on the couch, that's still better than if he were one of those icky gays, because everyone knows gay is wrong and gays don't love their children like people do. And they are godless sinners, it says so in the Bible... somewhere in Leviticus along with the bit about the shellfish and not sleeping with your cousins.


My ma was from a family of 16 kids. She has only fond memories of her childhood. And yes ATPG, are you now going to tell us why it is good to sleep with your cousins? That is something that BIOLOGY is against. Doing can often result in extreme physical and mental disorders. You wonder why the European ruling class was so :daisy:up through many periods of history? They were a bunch of inbred :daisy:. Drrn that nasty old Bible for condemning incest. Boy, good thing we modern people know so much more. *rolls eyes*

[Kralizec]

They are unequal because nature didn't make them equal. We can give them human rights and all, but we can't pretend they have the same biological function as everyone else, when they clearly don't. If you want children to be raised in anything besides a natural family, you have to justify it. This isn't an issue of having the right to your private life, because now there's other people being brought into the equation. You have to state your case if you think it's fair on them.

Strictly speaking, it isn't natural. And that means precisely nothing, because being unnatural does not necessarily equal being "bad" in anyway.

If you think that being raised by a same sex couple is bad for a child's (mental) health, you'll have to prove this because it certainly is not self-evident.

[Vuk]

Strictly speaking, it isn't natural. And that means precisely nothing, because being unnatural does not necessarily equal being "bad" in anyway.

If you think that being raised by a same sex couple is bad for a child's (mental) health, you'll have to prove this because it certainly is not self-evident.

There actually are studies I have read that have shown that both a male and female parent are needed for your child's best potential emotional and mental growth. That is why children from single parents and gay couples actually DO have more emotional problems then those raised in a family of a straight man and a straight woman. I read those several years back actually, and I am not sure if there has been anything more recent on it. I will try to search for it for you.


(and yes, social stigma was suggested in the study as a possible explanation for the lower emotional stability of children raised by gay couples. It is more likely I think though that it is a mixture of both, as other studies have shown the importance of a male and female figure for a child to grow up understanding the emotions of both better.)

[Samurai Waki]

There are also studies that suggest a father's first reaction to seeing his newborn child is that they want to kill it... :shrug:

[Vuk]

There are also studies that suggest a father's first reaction to seeing his newborn child is that they want to kill it... :shrug:

I mean studies with good method. ~;) I think I know the study you are referring to, and it is tosh and bosh through and through.

[Samurai Waki]

I mean studies with good method. ~;) I think I know the study you are referring to, and it is tosh and bosh through and through.

:yes: As I've been a student of Law for several years now, I'm pretty skeptical of any "study" regardless of where it comes from, Scientists/Journalists/Whathaveyou are still human, and still have bias.

[Vuk]

:yes: As I've been a student of Law for several years now, I'm pretty skeptical of any "study" regardless of where it comes from, Scientists/Journalists/Whathaveyou are still human, and still have bias.

True, as a student of History I know that full well myself, which is why I pointed out that there a certainly other factors in play. A study can always be bent to look one way or another, but I still do not think that it should be ignored, just examined with caution. I have been trying to log into my university system where I can access the academic journals from, but they will not let me do it here in Hungary. :P I guess I will look on Google. :P

[Strike For The South]

If they have a good and stable home. I dont care. In fact it should be criminal negligence to allow qualified to allow orphans to go without parents because some people think it's icky and gays sacrafice goats every tuesday.

I don't care what study you have saying in order for proper toe devolpment you need a penis and vagiania in the house becuase you and I both know that is Daisy.

We have bigger fish to fry.

[Rhyfelwyr]

You can't tell me any child would be happy in such an environment. Or is that just because of my bigotted upbringing. :rolleyes:

[Andres]

You can't tell me any child would be happy in such an environment.

Why not?

Really, I can't see any good reasons to refuse a gay couple to adopt a child.

[Askthepizzaguy]

You know, gay people aren't sterile, and many of them have their own biological children, and they raise them just fine.

That means the discussion is over, and the law needs to be amended to be more fair and inclusive.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's your upbringing.

The question here is not whether two Gay parents are bad, it is whether they are the same as two straight parents.

At the end of the day, they aren't. Two men cannot have a baby together, nor two women. Such is life.

The only purpose of marriage is to contain heterosexual activity for the protection of childen. To be blunt marriage is about preventing bastardry. It has nothing to do with pleasure, or love, or any of that dross.

Marriage is the legal sanction to bear ans raise offsping, and it is entered into before the bearing, not after.

So I suppose that makes marriage completely irrelevant today.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Yes but they usually have those children with women, in which case you've just got to go with the court proceedings and do the best you can.

[Askthepizzaguy]

It's your upbringing.

The question here is not whether two Gay parents are bad, it is whether they are the same as two straight parents.

So, two Gay parents can be good? And they deserve equal rights as everyone else? And I suppose the same goes for Bisexual people and transgendered people as well? My my my we are a bastion of progressive thought today. I am glad we've made progress. :medievalcheers:


At the end of the day, they aren't. Two men cannot have a baby together, nor two women. Such is life.

At the end of the day, many straight people can't have a baby together, and being gay does not make you sterile. Plenty of gay people have children. Such is life.


The only purpose of marriage is to contain heterosexual activity for the protection of childen.
:inquisitive:


To be blunt marriage is about preventing bastardry.

:laugh4:


It has nothing to do with pleasure, or love, or any of that dross.

Spoken like a true romantic.


Marriage is the legal sanction to bear ans raise offsping, and it is entered into before the bearing, not after.

That's not what the law says. Are you making this stuff up on the spot?


So I suppose that makes marriage completely irrelevant today.

I note that the people clamoring for the sanctity of marriage have a very low opinion of the sacred institution of marriage, and believe it only applies to hypothetical and rare circumstances such as both people being virgins (and therefore childless), being together only for the purposes of dropping children out of vaginas, and staying together forever.

Some people have crazy ideas about two people being together because they want to be together, out of love, regardless of being old, or infertile, or not being virgins, etc... and that if their partner is an abusive child molesting drunk who ends up in jail for example they should be able to get a divorce from that partner.

Common sense stuff. You know, the world doesn't exist as a fantasy page where everyone lives a fairy tale. Real marriage exists in the real world where sometimes, people aren't virgins, or don't want children, or love each other. Imagine!

The more those who oppose gay marriage talk about the sanctity of traditional marriage, the more they invent a fictional "traditional marriage" that almost no one actually has. If they want to run off and join an Amish community where stuff like that actually happens, be my guest. Until then; it's the real world and people don't match the fantasy. That fantasy marriage is fine, but it is no better or holier than any other marriage.


Yes but they usually have those children with women, in which case you've just got to go with the court proceedings and do the best you can.

:inquisitive:

When you think of homosexuals, I take it that you don't picture women very often. Is it really the fear of another man touching you that drives your arguments?

Women are homosexuals sometimes too, and many of them attempt to be heterosexual due to societal pressure, and have children. Or maybe they are bisexual and they have relations with men at times. Or maybe they are willing to have babies the natural way regardless of their leanings. And gay men end up fathers.

"Go with the court proceedings..." what do you mean? Do you want to take children away from gays?

[Tribesman]

Being raised by a heterosexual couple has been the standard evolutionary/God given way for the whole of human history.
Bollox .

[Rhyfelwyr]

Bollox .

Or the state/commune/whatever institution... but rarely (if ever, idk) homosexual couples.

[Rhyfelwyr]

When you think of homosexuals, I take it that you don't picture women very often. Is it really the fear of another man touching you that drives your arguments?

Women are homosexuals sometimes too, and many of them attempt to be heterosexual due to societal pressure, and have children. Or maybe they are bisexual and they have relations with men at times. Or maybe they are willing to have babies the natural way regardless of their leanings. And gay men end up fathers.

"Go with the court proceedings..." what do you mean? Do you want to take children away from gays?

Maybe I have misunderstood your post... I thought you were referring to when gay men have had children in the past but after coming out obviously had to divorce, but they still raised them fine. When I said about court proceedings, I was just referring to standard divorce procedures... they're never ideal for anyone whether your parents are heterosexual or not but what can you do.

[Tribesman]

Or the state/commune/whatever institution... but rarely (if ever, idk) homosexual couples.

bollox

[Askthepizzaguy]

Tribesman gets right to the point. :laugh2:

[HoreTore]

Indeed he does, and quite rightly too.



I shall wait and see how long it takes people to come up with the right answer to "how have children been raised through history?"

[Samurai Waki]

The historical western view to raising children has been in a very judaic fashion, nothing wrong with that. However, if you go back to before Jay-sus the line blurs quite a bit. There really isn't much documentation on the subject, suffice it to say the Greeks were pretty indifferent in regards to homosexuality (and in some cases overtly supportive).

[Rhyfelwyr]

Show me cultures where homosexuals raised children.

[Tribesman]

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Greece Rome Egypt Siam China India Persia Melanesia.......
Would you like a bigger list as there are a lot of countries and cutures in the world

[Adrian II]

You can't tell me any child would be happy in such an environment. Or is that just because of my bigotted upbringing. :rolleyes:No, the problem is you don't know split about life, kids, parenting or history. It'll come. Hopefully.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Greece Rome Egypt Siam China India Persia Melanesia.......
Would you like a bigger list as there are a lot of countries and cutures in the worldParts of Polynesia, the Caribbean...

[Rhyfelwyr]

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Greece Rome Egypt Siam China India Persia Melanesia.......
Would you like a bigger list as there are a lot of countries and cutures in the world

Half of them also think its OK to be a pedo. Not comparing homosexuals to pedo's but I think we should not base our values on those guys.

[Tribesman]

I think we should not base our values on those guys.

So you want to take places that and cultures that are the cradles of western civilisation and reject their values because it just ain't western culture:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[Rhyfelwyr]

So you want to take places that and cultures that are the cradles of western civilisation and reject their values because it just ain't western culture:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

I guess it's just the paedophilia that turns me off the idea. Judeo-Christian values work. Doesn't have to be the nuclear family of course which is a modern phenomenon, but some sort of standard family model will do.

[Tribesman]

guess it's just the paedophilia that turns me off the idea. Judeo-Christian values work. Doesn't have to be the nuclear family of course which is a modern phenomenon, but some sort of standard family model will do.

Ah yes Judeo-Christian values like are established culture inBritain , so tell me Rhyf in the history of your nation did people get married and have sex in situations which we would now call paedophilia ? Was it a standard family model in your cherished enlightened Christian culture?
And of course this is both before and after the rather late date when Christianity actually decided that marriage was a religious thing.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Ah yes Judeo-Christian values like are established culture inBritain , so tell me Rhyf in the history of your nation did people get married and have sex in situations which we would now call paedophilia ? Was it a standard family model in your cherished enlightened Christian culture?
And of course this is both before and after the rather late date when Christianity actually decided that marriage was a religious thing.

Yeah there's nothing with the system they have in feudal times with the extended family, except when parents try to arrange marriages that is very disgusting, or when some pedo tries to push his luck just because there isn't a set rule. But that's why we have an age requirement, problem solved.

I guess you're talking about the Catholic Church when you say marriage didn't come in to rather late? Because its a big thing with Protestants like myself (except for the Shakers but you've got to love them). And if you want to talk about my country, marriage was common in the Celtic Church, even for the clergy, ever since it came to British soil.

[Tribesman]

I guess you're talking about the Catholic Church when you say marriage didn't come in to rather late? Because its a big thing with Protestants like myself
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Protestants , thats a newfangled thing isn't it . So its a big thing with protestants because they took it over from the Catholics who took one hell of a time to introduce it.:dizzy2:


And if you want to talk about my country, marriage was common in the Celtic Church, even for the clergy, ever since it came to British soil.
Ah marriage in the Celtic church , this could get interesting , are you sure you want to go down that line ?Is it just a case of throwing some nugget out there in a futile attempt to support your position:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[HoreTore]

Yeah there's nothing with the system they have in feudal times with the extended family, except when parents try to arrange marriages that is very disgusting, or when some pedo tries to push his luck just because there isn't a set rule. But that's why we have an age requirement, problem solved.

I guess you're talking about the Catholic Church when you say marriage didn't come in to rather late? Because its a big thing with Protestants like myself (except for the Shakers but you've got to love them). And if you want to talk about my country, marriage was common in the Celtic Church, even for the clergy, ever since it came to British soil.

Oh come on.

You whined about pedo's, Tribesman called your whine. The least you can do is be a sport and answer him properly.

But then again, the fact remains that up until recent times, the age people were considered fit for marriage was when the girls got their period and the boys willie started acting up, or what we usually call "sexually mature". Which is usually about half the age we now consider an appropriate age for marriage, and well beyond our standard for pedophilia.

Also, arranged marriages are disgusting? Considering it's been the staple marriage in all layers of society throughout our christian history up until modern times, wouldn't that mean that you hate the traditional christian marriage? Or is this another case of "I'll pick the parts I like and forget the other stuff"-syndrome?

[Samurai Waki]

Hell the FLDS already came under serious fire for marrying off several very underaged girls to some quite advanced in age men. So that kind of shoots the whole pedophilia argument out of the sky...

[Rhyfelwyr]

I don't think marriage is some grand institution that you need a big fancy service in front of a clergyman and then that's you making your household in God's favourite style. Marriage just wasn't a big thing to the early Catholics, that's fine by me as far as I'm concerned two people can just say right we're now married and there you go. If pedo's abuse that and try to disguise it under a Christian marriage whatever that's supposed to mean then that's just digusting like it would be in any religion/culture. In any case, families in Christian Britain have always been based on heterosexual relationships, and I like things that way. :yes:

I think it's best I don't go into that epic debate on the Celtic Church, I've derailed enough threads recently. :sweatdrop:

[Viking]

Strictly speaking, it isn't natural. [...]

If it is unnatural, then humans must be above nature. I suppose you would say that the first humans who ended the nomadic life were doing something unnatural; i.e. doing something else than the "tradition"? Was every new "specie" that evolved; every new human behaviour (cooked meat rather than raw meat, farmers rather than nomads, cities rather than farms, cars rather than walking) unnatural in the beginning, and eventually got natural? What is natural?

One can live in a city and long for nature. But if cities do not count as "nature", do ant-hills?

[HoreTore]

I don't think marriage is some grand institution that you need a big fancy service in front of a clergyman and then that's you making your household in God's favourite style. Marriage just wasn't a big thing to the early Catholics, that's fine by me as far as I'm concerned two people can just say right we're now married and there you go. If pedo's abuse that and try to disguise it under a Christian marriage whatever that's supposed to mean then that's just digusting like it would be in any religion/culture. In any case, families in Christian Britain have always been based on heterosexual relationships, and I like things that way. :yes:

I think it's best I don't go into that epic debate on the Celtic Church, I've derailed enough threads recently. :sweatdrop:

I find your lack of any kind of answer fascinating.

I mean, this must be the 7th or 8th time in this thread you avoid simple, direct questions and instead come with some minor, idiotic and irrelevant nonsense.

If I didn't know better, I would've thought it to be on purpose, as a poor attempt to hide an impossible position.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Strictly speaking, the computer you're using isn't natural. It's made out of plastics and composite materials! IT'S AGAINST GOD'S LAW!

Or perhaps, just as human society has progressed and evolved, our understanding of morality needs to grow up as well. Church organizations who abuse and molest children are now considered immoral, while adult gay people who consent to sexual relations with one another are now considered just fine.

It makes sense to me and a growing sector of the population, particularly the young people. I get a kick out of, say, Republican children.

Bush daughters having a wild swingin' time. Cheney's daughter is gay. Palin's daughter has a child out of wedlock. McCain's daughter is a pro-gay marriage liberal.

And now they teach us about good family values.

[Rhyfelwyr]

What was the question?

Anyway, for modern history at least children have been raised by heterosexual couples whenever possible. Please explain why an alternative works just as well, I'm not the one proving something.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Anyway, for modern history at least children have been raised by heterosexual couples whenever possible. Please explain why an alternative works just as well, I'm not the one proving something.

No, the burden of proof is on YOU to demonstrate, using facts, that gays cannot raise their children just as well as anyone else, because you're arguing for the side which says that they cannot. Demonstrate why, or don't object when they raise their children.

Go.

The scary part is, what if we were able to somehow prove that gay couples raised smarter children or happier children? Would that then mean that all children need to be raised by gays because they are better parents? NO! Parents of children should raise their own children unless it can be demonstrated WHY they are unfit parents! They don't need to prove they are better than anyone else, they just need to raise their child in a manner befitting a parent, and they do so until YOU can prove otherwise! You have yet to make any progress demonstrating why gays being married would be bad for them or bad for society. You have yet to demonstrate why they would be unfit adoptive parents. You have yet to demonstrate why they shouldn't be allowed to raise their own children. Other than religious objections, you have no case.

Either make a case, or accept it is your own prejudice and nothing else. The burden of proof is on you.

[Tribesman]

Either make a case, or accept it is your own prejudice and nothing else
Good point , face it Rhyf , you have attempted many different angles on this in an attempt to make your case, and each has fallen apart very quickly.